Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with), — MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Huddersfield Corporation Gas Bill [Lords],
Middlesbrough Corporation Bill [Lords] 
Stockton-on-Tees Corporation Bill [Lords]

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),— MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. 
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill.

Ordered That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable)— MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills,
referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Commons Regulation (Coity Wallia) Provisional Order Bill.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill.

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

Hartlepool Gas and Water Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the third time

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the final reply of the Soviet Government to the Nansen proposals for feeding the population of Russia?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The reply sent to Doctor Nansen by the Soviet Government was intercepted by wireless on 10th May. It was to the effect that, while they consented to the scheme on humanitarian grounds, they could not agree to the cessation of hostilities, which was a political question except after direct discussion with either the Associated Governments or with persons empowered by them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if two senators of the ex-Russian Empire, Belgrad and Baronowski, are now in Berlin, seeking German help for a restoration of the monarchy at Petrograd; and, if so, are all steps being taken to counteract any such movement?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have no information as to the present activities of Monsieur Belgrad and Monsieur Baronowski. The second part of the hon. and gallant Member's question does not, therefore, arise.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. Gentleman had any intimation of these two persons being in Berlin?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir, I have had no information about that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMYRNA.

Lieut-Colonel AUDREY HERBERT: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is a fact that, after the Greek massacres at Smyrna, Smyrna is to be handed over to the Greeks; and if this is to form a political precedent?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The question of Smyrnawill form part of the general Peace settlement with Turkey, which is at present under discussion in Paris. I regret that I cannot, therefore, make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSULAR APPOINTMENTS

Brigadier-General CROFT: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state when Mr. Graham, now or recently Consul of Lyons, adopted the name of Graham; whether this gentleman is of British origin; and why he was removed from the Consulate at Amsterdam, and appointed to a subordinate post at Lyons?

Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND (Department of Oversea Trade): Mr. Graham is a British-born subject. His father's name was Michaelides, who was naturalised nearly fifty years ago, and who has always been resident in British dominions. Mr. Graham took his mother's maiden name on entering the Consular Service. Mr. Graham's proper posts have been in Guatemala and Colon respectively. He has, however, acted temporarily elsewhere during the War, owing to the stress of work in Europe. In Amsterdam he was Acting Consul, and he is now Acting Consul-General at Lyons. Mr. Graham still holds the appointment of Consul at Colon, and will proceed to that post as soon as a successor to the Consul-General at Lyons is appointed.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Was he born in this country?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have every reason to think so.

5. Brigadier-General CROFT: asked whether a letter from a British Chamber of Commerce in Paris with regard to Mr. Hearn, the present Consul-General in Paris, which was received by the Foreign Office, has now been communicated to him; and whether consideration has been given to that communication?

Sir A. STEEL-MAlTLAND: Due consideration was given to a letter from the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris in regard to Mr. Hearn, and the Chamber were informed in reply that the decision in regard to Mr. Hearn's retirement from the service could not be reversed. The Chamber's letter was not communicated to Mr. Hearn.

Sir J. D. REES: If there is nothing known against these gentlemen does it not weaken their position, and is it not undesirable to have suggestions made?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware that there is anything suggested against them.

Sir J. D. REES: I refer to the intention of the questions.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: May we assume that the appointment of Mr. Maxse in Paris still holds good?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That question is under reconsideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONTENEGRO.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state whether the recognition by His Majesty's Government of the kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes has safeguarded the right of the Montenegrin people to determine for themselves whether or not they shall be included in. such kingdom and under what conditions as to the retention or otherwise of their own monarchy in the event of their desiring to be so included; and, if not, will he explain why the independence of one of the small nations in alliance with His Majesty has been compromised by the-action of the British Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The recognition of the new Yugo-Slav State was accorded to the kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. The question whether the Mon-
tenegrin people desire to enter the new union, and, if so, under what conditions, remains unaffected by the above recognition. The last sentence of the hon. and learned Member's question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. McNEILL: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Montenegrin Government addressed any protest to the delegates of the Powers at the Peace Conference as to the Mission which was recently sent to Montenegro to obtain information in regard to the conditions prevailing there; whether, in view of the fact that Montenegro is a sovereign State in alliance with this country, it was in accordance with international usage to send a political mission there without consultation with the Government of the country; whether the Mission has made any Report; and, if so, will he communicate the Report to this House?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is evident from the hon. and learned Member's questions that he is labouring under a misapprehension in regard to the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards Montenegro. Since the time of King Nicolas' departure from Montenegro, a movement has spread among important and numerous sections of the population which favours the union of their country with the new State in a form which would be incompatible with the maintenance of the present Montenegrin dynasty. In the eyes of this party King Nicolas and those Ministers whom he has himself nominated from among his personal adherents do not represent the wishes and feelings of the Montenegrin people. His Majesty's Government have for some time past had grounds for thinking that this is the case, and It was in order to arrive at a clear understanding of the situation that they dispatched a Special Commissioner to Montenegro in the hope that he would be able to ascertain the real desire of the Montenegrin people as to their own future. His Majesty's Government have the most sincere sympathy for and confidence in the Montenegrin people, and their action in sending Count de Salis to Cettinje was dictated solely by the desire to obtain a popular rather than a merely dynastic appreciation of the Montenegrin desiderata.
Up to the present only telegraphic summaries of his conclusions have been re-
ceived from Count de Salis, but I shall be prepared to consider the hon. and learned Member's suggestion that the final Report, when received, should be laid before the House.

Mr. McNEILL: Is it possible to arrive at knowledge of the wishes of the people except by a popular vote of some sort; and, if so, what is the value of the inquiry by a Commission?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot add anything to what I have said in the reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY DISCHARGES (RESTORATION OF RANK).

Colonel ASHLEY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, on the conclusion of Peace, he would be prepared to consider applications for restoration of rank without pay or allowances from war rant and non-commissioned officers who. having rendered excellent service during the War, find themselves for various causes discharged in a lower rank than that held on mobilisation or attained, during service, provided that such reduction was not in any way due to misconduct?

Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to Army Order 82 of 1919, a copy of which I will send him, as it is too long to read out in the House. I regret it is not possible to alter these Regulations.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is not the War Office aware that many excellent non-commissioned officers for purely technical offences have lost their rank, and though that was quite right in war-time, surely those excellent men should now be restored to the rank they previously held?

Captain GUEST: The whole subject is-being most carefully reviewed at the moment and it is not possible to say at present if any alteration will be made.

Colonel ASHLEY: I will put a question next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL CANTEEN FUND

Mr. HOGGE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether £450,000 of the
canteen profits have already been distributed; whether he can say how it has been distributed; in what amounts and by whose authority; and what balance still remains?

64. Major GLYN: asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state what sum of money is at present credited to the Central Canteen Fund under the control of the Army Trustees; what sums have been paid out of this fund since 1916, and to what organisations; and whether the War Office is prepared to reconsider the present proposals for the uses to which this money may be put by establishing an advisory committee that will contain members elected by the various recognised ex-Service men's organisations and that in the meantime no further payments from this fund will be made?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The total amount of the profits from Canteen Trading Account cannot be ascertained until the various organisations are wound up, but at present the Central Fund amounts to £717,431. Up to the 31st May last, over £850,000 had been distributed from canteen funds under the authority of the Army Council. The details of the latter are published from time to time in Army Orders or Instructions. The future management of the fund is under consideration.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of decreasing the profits and increasing the quality of the beer sold?

Mr. FORSTER: A great many other commodities are sold besides beer; but the question is under consideration.

Mr. HOGGE: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the sum of £850,000 discloses £700,000 in hand? I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

TROOPS DETAINED.

Mr. HURD: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to be able to return to this country the troops who left Mesopotamia to be demobilised last March and who were detained in India because of the difficult situation then aris-
ing; and why these troops in India were excluded from his pledge that by the end of July all 1915 men would be sent home for release?

Captain GUEST: As regards the first part of the question, demobilisable men temporarily retained in India on account of the internal and other difficulties will be sent home as soon as reliefs can be provided. India was definitely excluded from my statement in the House on the 29th May regarding the release of 1914 and 1915 men, in view of the disturbances on the North-West Frontier, and so long as the position remains unsettled these troops cannot be withdrawn until reliefs arrive to take their place.

Mr. HURD: Cannot some terms be given to men sent out in this way?

Captain GUEST: It must depend very largely on disturbances on the North-West frontier.

HEALTH OF TEOOPS (KARACHI BEST CAMP)

Mr. HURD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the latest report as to the health of the troops in the rest camp at Karachi; how many men are in hospital; what deaths, if any, have taken place owing to the heat; whether he is aware that the latest news from home received by soldiers there is dated January last; and whether their wives' letters are still being returned to England instead of being sent on to Karachi from Mesopotamia?

Captain GUEST: This question has been referred by cable to India, and I will let my hon. Friend know as soon as a reply is received.

TROOPS TRANSFERRED.

Mr. A. SHAW: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the feeling existing with regard to the transfer to India of men who volunteered in 1914 or 1915 and were medically rejected, of men who attested under the Derby scheme, of colliery workers and others whose services have been applied for and who are required in the mines and workshops of the country, of married men with families dependent upon them, and of men whose services are required for the assistance and support of their families; and whether he can give any reassurance upon the subject?

Captain GUEST: No soldiers retained or volunteering for service under Army Order 55 are being sent to India. Only soldiers serving on regular normal engagements or enlisted for periods of two, three, or four years, are being sent to India. As I have already stated, it is, however, the case that, owing to the situation in India, all men sent for demobilisation from Mesopotamia, viâ India, have been temporarily retained in India (except in the case of men who are passed unfit for further service).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will it not be possible to give priority to volunteers for India to relieve these men?

Captain GUEST: I will make inquiries.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that men who have been German prisoners and have been working in the salt mines and have become physical wrecks are being sent out to India and is that the policy of the War Office?

Captain GUEST: No. The answer to the latter part of the question points out that no man who is not medically fit is sent out. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the cases to which he refers I will have them looked into immediately.

Mr. JONES: I will send particulars of the cases.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us any hope of any certain definite date when these men will be released?

Captain GUEST: This statement forestalls the statement which the Secretary of State is preparing dealing with demobilisation.

ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS

Major HURST: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Royal Army Medical Corps details released in April from Mesopotamia for demobilisation but now detained in the Marshall lines, Karachi, will be allowed to proceed home; and, if so, within what time?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): All men arriving in India from Mesopotamia are liable to be retained until the situation permits of their release, and I regret that I can make no definite statement at present regarding the demobilisation of personnel serving in India.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR ARMY

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the weekly average of enlistments for the post-war Army during the months of May and June. 1919, distinguishing between men who are fit from age and medical classification to-provide the autumn reliefs for the Indian, garrison and those who are not?

Captain GUEST: Between the 28th April and 21st June, 1019, 15,434 recruits joined on normal engagements and 6,512 for two, three, or four years and there were 6,156 re-enlistments, the weekly averages being therefore 1,929, 814, and 770 respectively. I regret that I have no information to enable me to discriminate between those who are eligible for Indian drafts and those who are not.

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether a system of educational training for the after-the-War Army has been approved; and, if so, whether steps are being taken to train an adequate number of permanent teachers for this particular duty?

Captain GUEST: A system of educational training in the after-war Army is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any announcement on the subject.

Major M. WOOD: When are we likely to have this scheme?

Captain GUEST: Very soon indeed.

Sir P. MAGNUS: Will my hon. and gallant Friend issue a statement as soon as he is prepared to indicate how these teachers are to be prepared?

Captain GUEST: I will call the attention of the Secretary of State to that.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL FORCE (CADET CORPS)

Colonel YATE: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the consideration of the future status of the Territorial Force, consideration will also be given to the cadet farce, and whether officers who have given their services so freely in the formation and encouragement of cadet corps will be given the same privileges as regards rank and right to
wear uniform on retirement, etc., as are granted to officers of the Territorial Force?

Captain GUEST: The future of the cadet force is now being considered and reviewed along with other problems connected with the future of the Territorial Force. With regard to the latter part of the question, I am afraid that it is not possible to give cadet officers the privileges accorded to Territorial Force officers on retirement as regards rank and the right to wear uniform, unless they pass the same tests as are required of Territorial Force officers. The question of providing for this will be considered among other matters connected with the future of the cadet force.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENSORSHIP (SOUTH AMERICA)

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is necessary to maintain the censorship of cables and mails to and from South America; and if, in view of the delay occasioned by the censorship, he will give instructions for it to be removed?

Captain GUEST: It is to be hoped that circumstances may soon render this relaxation possible.

Mr. BILLING: Willnot the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the advisability now in peace time of reviewing the whole question of the censorship throughout the world as far as this country is concerned?

Captain GUEST: The War Office is at present considering this amongst other questions in the light of the signature of peace by Germany.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Why now that peace has been signed should the censorship be necessary on letters and cables to South America?

Captain GUEST: The Secretary of State himself has spent considerable time in the study of this question and asked me to give this answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-PRISONERS OF WAR (PROMOTION)

Colonel BURN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will favourably consider the cases of officers and non-com-
missioned officers who, through no fault of their own, were made prisoners by our enemies, and who have in consequence suffered as regards promotion?

Captain GUEST: Officers who, through no fault of their own, were made prisoners by the enemy have been considered for promotion, and where eligible have been promoted. As regards non-commissioned officers, the question is under consideration.

Colonel ASHLEY: Why should there be different treatment for commissioned and non-commissioned officers?

Captain GUEST: I am not in a position to answer the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLDIERS' GRAVES

Sir CHARLES HENRY: 21.
asked the Secretary for War if he recognises the urgent necessity of expediting the work of the concentration of the. graves of British soldiers in France and Belgium, as also the desirability of additional efforts being made to locate and identify the remains of those who were buried without any marks of identification; and if for this most necessary work he will arrange for a substantial addition to the number of men at present employed in France and Belgium for this object?

Captain GUEST: The importance and urgency of the work of concentration and location of the scattered and isolated graves of our soldiers in France and Belgium is fully recognised. Fifteen thousand additional men for this particular work have recently been enlisted, of whom about 5,000 have already proceeded, to France and the remainder will follow as soon as possible. It is considered that this number will enable the work to be completed in a satisfactory manner, without undue delay. Should it, however, be found desirable still further to increase the staff, the matter shall have my careful consideration.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that an enormous number of the graves in France and Belgium are in the most deplorable condition, and will he give his attention to it?

Captain GUEST: The Graves Commissioners are fully aware of the condition of affairs in France and Flanders, and are doing their very utmost.

Mr. BILLING: Is any record being kept by the War Office of these graves?

Captain GUEST: Yes, a most careful record.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will recommend the Government to refuse to allow ordinary tourists to visit the battlefields and graveyards of France and Belgium until it is possible to permit the relatives of all those who have fallen and been buried overseas to visit their graves?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that my hon. Friend's proposal is not considered feasible. I may say that the War Office is no longer placing any restrictions on the visits of relatives, except that they are requested not to go to the areas in which the work of concentration is actually taking place, but to defer their visit to such places till the work is completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL ENGINEERS (POSTAL SECTION)

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the case of a number of men, formerly Post Office telegraphists serving in the Royal Engineers, now stationed in the Bedford Signal Depots, who have served from two to three years in the unhealthy climate of East Africa, and are under orders again for the East; and if he will consider the possibility of effecting their demobilisation or sending them instead to France or Germany?

Captain GUEST: An endeavour will be made to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion, and to send such of these men as are eligible for drafting to the Rhine instead of to the East.

Lieut.-Colonel ROUNDELL: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether postal employé s who joined the postal section, Royal Engineers, at the beginning of the War are to receive no gratuity for their service; whether men in other walks of life who received full wages from their employers during the War have received the gratuity; and, if so, if he will take steps to grant the gratuity to postal employé s?

Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on 10th April to the hon. Member for Burnley, to which I can add nothing.

Oral Answers to Questions — STRIKE (DUSSELDORF).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in consequence of a strike in some metal works near Dusseldorf on 28th May, which took place against the orders of the British military authorities, ten strikers were arrested and eighty were deported; whether a state of siege was imposed, and workers were driven into their houses at the point of the bayonet; and whether, in view of the bad effect of this sort of news, he will take steps to prevent our soldiers interfering in foreign strikes in future, or issue immediate denials if the reports are untrue?

Captain GUEST: In the interests of order and of the security of the British troops, and to avoid the possibility of the latter being involved in repressing civil disturbances in the area under British occupation, the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army of the Rhine has instituted a British Arbitration Court as a final chamber for settling disputes between employers and employed. This Court is resorted to only when no settlement has been reached by the German Courts, and it is held on the distinct understanding that both parties will accept and abide by its finding. It would obviously be impossible to allow strikes and industrial disturbances to take place at the will of the artisans, and to the peril of good order in the areas under military control. Such disturbances, if they developed to any extent, might have grave consequences. On the 28th May, a strike took place, and as the strikers broke their agreement and refused to abide by the ruling of the Court some of them were deported into unoccupied Germany. No state of siege was imposed. It is not proposed to interfere with the measures taken by the Commander-in-Chief to deal with these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY HORSES AND MULES (SALES)

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 30.
asked the Secretary for War whether the Army authorities are now selling surplus Army horses and mules to Egyptians and Greeks and others in the East; whether he can state what classes of persons are purchas-
ing these animals and for what purposes, and the number of the animals sold or about to be sold and the prices obtained; whether care is taken to ensure that none of the animals so sold are worn out or unfitted for work; whether any guarantees are obtained to ensure that these animals will be treated humanely; and whether any inspection of the animals in the hands of the purchasers is possible?

Mr. FORSTER: Sales of Army horses and mules as they become surplus to requirements are still being made in Eastern theatres of war, though sales in these theatres are practically finished for the present, and the numbers to be sold in future will depend upon the rate of reduction of establishments. I understand that sales are principally to agriculturists, who in their own interests must keep the animals in fit condition. The numbers of animals sold and average prices obtained are:
Horses, 11,101; average price varying from £42 18s to £17 5s 9d
Mules, 29,708; average price varying from £46 3s 2d to £33 8s 6d
Donkeys, 11,046; average price varying from £9 6s to £8 10s
Camels, 22,196; average price £22 Is. 8d Every possible care is taken to ensure that only animals fit for work are sold, and general officers commanding have exercised their discretion freely as regards destroying animals which they have thought it undesirable to sell. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply given to a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Eye on the 25th February, a copy of which I am sending him. The abstracts from Reports by the local military authorities circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date show the arrangements which have been made in Egypt and Mesopotamia to' secure the humane treatment of animals sold, and to provide for their inspection.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In case it is found that these animals are not humanely treated, is there any means of killing the animals or getting them back?

Mr. FORSTER: If in the case of cruelty we were able to bring it home to the owner, steps would be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY ORGANISATION, CROMWELL ROAD

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: 31.
asked the Secretary for War whether he has now made personal inquiry into the necessity for the continued existence of the military organisation at present housed at 29, Cromwell Road, as promised on 2nd April, 1919; and whether he will state the results of such an inquiry?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, and I have already communicated the result to my hon. Friend.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the military staff at 29, Cromwell Road are appointed by and responsible to the Joint Road Committee or the War Office; what are the functions of these officers; and whether the work of the Joint Roads. Committee could be done equally well without the assistance of this staff?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The staff which form the administrative branch of the Joint Roads Committee have been appointed by the War Office and are responsible to the War Office, through the Committee. The rest of the question is answered by the communication which I have sent to my hon. Friend.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman circulate the communication in order that we may know what it is?

Mr. BILLING: Would it not be possible to make it part of the answer in the ordinary way?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have sent a, very long letter to my hon. Friend which deals argumentatively with a rather technical and involved matter. If the hon. Gentleman wants it to appear in the records of the House he must put me a question in that sense.

Major PRESCOTT: Has the right hon. Gentleman invited the opinion of the Road Board as to this military organisation which is at present exercising control over the public highways of this country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Member wants an answer on the subject he had better put a question down. I have answered the question which he originally raised.

Oral Answers to Questions — VACCINATION REGULATIONS (ARMY ORDERS)

Mr. WATER SON: 33.
asked the Secretary for War whether Private F. M. Jones, No. 042960', Royal Army Ordnance Corps, A.P.O., L 4, Italian. Expeditionary Force, on refusing to be vaccinated, has been confined to his billet; whether he has been informed that refusal to submit to vaccination will stop his demobilisation, he being the next man on the list for demobilisation; and whether the officer responsible will be informed that differential treatment is not to be meted out to any soldier who refuses vaccination?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Inquiries are already being made in this case, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result as soon as possible.

Mr. WATERSON: In the event of the officer being found to have contravened an Army Order, will the Secretary of State make it his duty to see that the officer is taken to task just as an ordinary non-commissioned officer or private would be?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If there has been any breach of the Regulations, I will treat it in the usual way.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION

NORTH RUSSIAN RELIEF FORCE

Mr. WATERSON: 34.
asked the Secretary for War how many 1914 and 1915 men have been demobilised from North Russia since the Armistice and the approximate number still waiting for demobilisation; if troops are going to Russia for relief purposes or reinforcement; and if he will state the approximate number of troops who were in the North Russian area on Armistice day and also the approximate number to-day?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As regards the first part of the question, the total number of men demobilised from North Russia since the Armistice is 1,625. I am unable to say how many of these are 1914– 1915 men. The approximate number still awaiting demobilisation is 2,700. As regards the second part of the question, with the exception of a few volunteers, no troops are being sent to North Russia. With regard to the third part of the question, it would not be in the public interest to disclose
the figures asked for by my hon. Friend, as portions of our troops in North Russia are in contact with the enemy. The withdrawal of the tired troops is proceeding according to programme. The Royal Scots have already sailed for home and various other units are following.

An HON. MEMBER: What enemy?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Armies of the Soviet Government.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that within the last two-months men have been sent to Russia who have not volunteered, but have been conscripted; and seeing that pledges have been given that men would not go except those who have volunteered, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have these men brought back?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to know of these cases.

Mr. WATERSON: I have cases.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is possible there may be a few individual cases where experts of technical corps, sanitary corps, and other special branches— a handful of individuals— may have been compelled to go, but I cannot be certain. If a special case is brought to my notice I will look into it, but in principle no one has been sent to Russia who has not volunteered to go.

ROYAL ENGINEERS (SAPPER A. J. TURNER)

Mr. WATERSON: 35.
asked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that in. Bagdad on 15th March, Sapper A. J. Turner, No. 191432, Royal Engineers, was issued all papers for demobilisation, was shipped to India presumably for transhipment for home, but was ordered to wait, and then told off for Poona, and that he was going to the Afghan frontier, and though the soldier produced his paper, and was over forty years, and had been passed as unfit last year owing to various maladies contracted in the East, no notice was taken, and he was ordered to go; and if he will state the exact position of these men as to demobilisation, when they are likely to get it, and when the exigencies of the Service will permit men of forty years of age and over to be released?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Owing to the situation in India, all men sent for demobilisation from Mesopotamia viâ India have
been temporarily retained in India (except in the case of men who are passed as unfit for further service). I have no knowledge of the case referred to by my hon. Friend, but Sapper Turner would not have been retained if he was unfit for service. I regret that at present I can make no definite statement regarding the demobilisation of personnel serving in India.

RESTRICTIONS

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 40.
asked the Secretary for War whether, in view of the hardship caused to married men, to working men, and to members of the business community now serving in the Army by the present Regulations governing demobilisation, he will at once remove the restrictions to the speedy re lease of men whose services in civil life are urgently needed, and also of those whose family circumstances demand their presence at home?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that it is not possible to depart from the Regulations at present in force governing eligibility for demobilisation. Fresh instructions have recently been issued regarding the early demobilisation of men who joined the Colours in 1914 and 1915, men over thirty-seven, and various other classes of men, who are eligible for demobilisation. If the men referred to by my Noble Friend fall within any of the categories prescribed in the new Instructions they will be dealt with accordingly. I may add that I contemplate issuing a Memorandum in the near future dealing with the changes in Army policy consequent upon the ratification of Peace.

COMPASSIONATE RELIEF

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state why Bombardier A. C. Robinson, No. 12297, Nottinghamshire, Royal Horse Artillery, 336th Brigade, Headquarter Staff, 18th Division, Mesopotamia, who enlisted in 1914, is still detained in the Army; and whether he will give instructions for his immediate re lease?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Fresh instructions have recently been issued regarding the early release of men who joined the Colours in 1914 and 1915, men over thirty-seven, and various other classes of men, who are eligible for demobilisation. If Bombardier Robinson joined the Colours
in 1914 as stated by my Noble Friend, he will be released in accordance with these Instructions.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by "various other classes"?

Mr. CHURCHILL: More than two wound-stripes, and the various eases comprised within the compassionate clauses

An HON. MEMBER: Does that include the owners of one-man businesses?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the compassionate release so far as the men are concerned is a fraud? It is almost impossible to get a man released on compassionate grounds.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid we had to schedule what were compassionate grounds entitling a man to be released, and that no doubt was felt not to be very satisfactory. It looked as if it was very grudging, but it affected 25,000 men within these hard and fast categories. If one man is released another man must stay to do the work.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions which will make some relaxation in these very harsh regulations in regard to compassionate release?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the question had better be dealt with as a whole. I agree with the Noble Lord that the time has come when, consequent upon the signature and the expected ratification of Peace, steps should be taken in regard to the further increased demobilisation of our military forces.

Mr. WATERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bring within that category the only sons of widowed mothers who are aged and infirm, and who do not come at present within the category of the Army Order?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will consider all the cases.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: When may we expect an extension of that category to the men who are not getting the benefit of the Army Order?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If it is possible the 1914 and 1915 men shall be let go at the
dates mentioned. Even now, after six months continuous demobilisation, we are still releasing men from the Colours at the rate of 5,000 a day.

Colonel WILLIAMS: But my right hon. Friend told us in this House that those men might be expected home by the 1st of May and they are still out in India and Mesopotamia.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No; I have always excepted India.

Colonel WILLIAMS: Is my right hon. Friend aware—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must put his questions down.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (RE-EMPLOYMENT).

Major NEWMAN: 36.
asked whether the War Office is responsible for any regulations issued as to what questions a would be employer can put to a discharged soldier before employing him; and whether an employer is entitled to ask a discharged soldier whether he is in receipt of a pension and, if so, how much?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the negative. As regards the second part, so far as I am aware, there is no statutory authority under which a discharged soldier must inform his would-be employer whether he is in receipt of a pension or the amount. I would add that the discharge certificate of a soldier does not disclose the amount of his pension.

Major NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what Department is responsible for the Regulations? Is it the Pensions Department?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know which Regulations the hon. Member refers to.

Major NEWMAN: The questions put to soldiers.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLDIERS ON THELAND (ALLOWANCES TO DEPENDANTS)

Major ENTWISTLE: 39.
asked the Secretary for War whether all soldiers authorised for retention on the land are being brought under the terms of Army Order 299
of 1918, under which their families "will not be entitled to separation allowances, and, if so, under what authority; whether he is aware that these soldiers cannot have their families with them owing to the great shortage of cottages, and consequently the separation allowance is a vital necessity; and whether, in these circumstances, either the separation allowance will be granted or the soldiers will be allowed to return to their former civil employment?

Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative. The terms offered to soldiers authorised for retention on agriculture are issued under the authority of the Government. All such soldiers who are not demobilisable have an option to return to the Colours if they prefer to do so.

Major ENTWISTLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the conditions and difficulties of these soldiers because they have not enough to live on with their families?

Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware that there is any injustice contemplated or done. The soldiers referred to get the full civilian rates of pay.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENSORSHIP

Sir H. NIELD: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to modify or abrogate the system of censorship, set up in the early months of the War, now that Peace is about to be concluded; what control has been exercised over letters forwarded to British subjects, resident or interned in Germany, when sent under cover through intermediaries in neutral countries or through the agency of Thomas Cook and Son;why have those mediums of communication been permitted, when letters, left open for the express purpose of examination by the Censor, addressed direct to British subjects in Germany, have been returned to the senders, though unexceptional in character and relating purely to official matters wholly unconnected with the War; and if he will say what parts of Germany were regarded by the Censor as being occupied early in the War?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The censorship in the United Kingdom of civil mails to and from places abroad, other than theatres
of military operations, has ceased. Regarding control during the War, letters addressed to British subjects resident in Germany, but not interned, were permitted to be sent under cover through intermediaries in neutral countries, or by the agency of Messrs. Cook and Sons or other authorised agencies in the United Kingdom, provided they were licensed by the proper authority if they were business communications. Letters to British subjects interned in Germany have, during the War, been permitted to go direct by prisoners of war mail. All the correspondence referred to was subject to censorship. The reason why correspondence was only permitted through these channels was because, on the outbreak of war, direct postal communication between the United Kingdom and Germany ceased, and thereafter the Post Office was unable to send ordinary postal communications direct. With regard to the last part of the question, a small portion of Alsace-Lorraine was in the occupation of the Allied Armies.

Sir H. NIELD: When did the censorship of letters directed to places other than theatres of military operations cease?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I forget, but I think a few weeks ago.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Has a direct service between this country and Germany been resumed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The military censorship has been completely abrogated, and the work of the enormous staff which was engaged upon that work has ceased.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that all censorship of letters from this country has now ceased? If so, how does he reconcile that with the answer given to-day that the censorship on mails and cables to South America is still under consideration?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are two censorships, the postal censorship and the cable censorship. The postal censorship, as I understand, has been abrogated, but the question of the cable censorship is engaging the attention of the Government, and it is obvious that relaxation in that direction is approaching.

Mr. BILLING: In the event of the Government opening any letters in the future
as they have done in the past, when there is no formal censorship, will they be guilty of a criminal act?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. Any communication which is in course of transmission through His Majesty's mails is liable to examination when necessary under the warrant of the Home Secretary.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the censorship of cables entails very great delay in the transmission of cables to and from New York and other places, which occasions serious loss?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a very important question, and the Government have devoted anxious attention to it with a view to relieving the commercial world of this burden at the earliest moment that the safety of the country permits.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIR HORACE SMITH-DORRIEN.

Mr. HOLMES: 44.
asked whether Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien has asked for per mission to reply to the attack made upon- him by Lord French?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; but the Army Council felt that it was undesirable-that permission should be given.

Mr. HOLMES: Why have the Army Council arrived at that decision?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Because Sir Horace-Smith-Dorrien is a serving soldier.

Mr. HOLMES: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (STAFF)

Colonel ASHLEY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in selecting the staff of the new Ministry of Supply, preference is being given to ex-Service men, especially to those who have served overseas; and, if so, is this to be the considered policy of the Department?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNI TIONS (Mr. Kellaway): As stated in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's question on the 6th May last, in selecting the staff for any new permanent organisation that Parliament may decide to set up, preference will be given to ex-Service men to the fullest possible extent. Of the pre sent male staff of 6,710 at the headquarters of the Ministry of Munitions over 2,000 are ex-Service men.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINES (DEFICIENCY ON WORKING).

Major NEWMAN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a Supplementary Estimate for £26,400,000 to make good at the public expense, an estimated deficiency in the working of the coal mines was presented to the House three months ago; if he will say when an opportunity will be afforded of debating this Estimate; if any of the money asked for has been already spent; and, if so, from whom will the same be recovered should the House refuse to pass the Estimate?

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The Estimate presented on 1st April stands referred to Standing Committee "C." In view of the urgent nature of the service advances have been made from the Civil Contingencies Fund in anticipation of the Vote.

Major NEWMAN: When will the Committee consider this Vote? Will it be in the near future?

Mr. BALDWIN: I could not say. Obviously it must be considered before very long.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

RAW MATERIAL (COST)

Major NEWMAN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, to better inform all classes of the community as to the reasons that have led to the increase in the cost of the necessaries of life, apart from food, he will recommend the appointment of a Select Committee to ascertain and report how much of such increase can be held to be due to an advance in the cost of raw material, to the advance in wages, and to profiteering in manufacture and sale?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I do not think that the rise in prices, the extent to which materials and wages have increased, and the question of profiteering could satisfactorily be investigated by a Select Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the telephone service in the United Kingdom is inferior to that which was provided by the commercial company from which it was expropriated and very
much inferior to that provided by commercial concerns in America or in Sweden and Norway; and whether he will favourably consider retrocessing the telephones to an efficient private company, with limitation of tariff, that the service may be reconstructed under the advice of American or other organisers of efficient systems, so that the present service, which involves a loss to the State, may be replaced by a cheap and efficient system?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr Illingworth): I have been aske5 to answer this question. I think the hon. Member will recognise that any comparison between the present telephone service and that afforded before the War, whether by a private company or otherwise, must be misleading. The present difficulties of the service are due to causes directly arising out of the War, such as the enforced suspension of the construction of new exchanges and lines and the withdrawal of skilled operators to other employments. A private company would have suffered from the same difficulties. In the United States there is at present an admitted deterioration of the telephone service owing to war conditions, and at the same time telephone rates have had to be increased to meet the general rise in the cost of labour and materials.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Why, when a Government Department takes up a commercial enterprise which, if it were a private concern, would go into bankruptcy, should it not be liquidated in the ordinary way and handed over to others?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I think that the telephone is not the only business, if I may call it so, which has gone through very severe difficulties owing to the strain of war conditions.

Mr. RAPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the telephone service in Norway and Sweden has been carried on by the Governments of these countries for a long time, with the exception of Stockholm, where there was a private service which was bought up by the Government about eighteen months ago?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am afraid that I have no information.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to get some advice from Norway and Sweden, or get the Minister of Transport to take over the telephone and make it a success?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I will make a statement on the subject of the telephone on the Post Office Estimates when they come up, which I hope will be very soon.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS

Mr. SWAN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if he will endeavour to amend the Old Age Pensions Act so as to enable boards of guardians to be empowered to grant outdoor relief to the old age pensioners who have no other source of in come apart from the pension, such relief not to disqualify the recipient from continuing to receive the old age pension?

Mr. BALDWIN: I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him on the 26th instant.

Mr. SWAN: How are the old people to live on their pensions without some assistance, in view of the high cost of living?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. RAPER: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state when the Report of Lord Simmer's Committee regarding the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Company will be forthcoming?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is hoped that the Report will be ready before the end of the month.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE CELEBRATIONS.

SALE OF INTOXICANTS

Mr. DONALD: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government will consider the advisability of prohibiting the sale of intoxicants during the Peace Celebrations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that my hon. Friend's suggestion is desirable.

Mr. DONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is the view of the Prime Minister?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not express any views here except those of the Government.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider releasing additional beer and spirits?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Personally I should hardly think that that would be any more desirable than the other.

Mr. DONALD: It may not be popular in this House, but should not this House show a good example to the country?

STATEMENT BY ME BONAR LAW

Sir D. MACLEAN: Can we have any information on the question of the Peace Celebrations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It has been decided that thanksgiving services will be held throughout the country on Sunday next. A service will be held at St. Paul's Cathedral at 11 a.m., at which Their Majesties will be present. The Speaker will also be present, and' the House of Commons will be invited to attend. Ladies will also be invited. Morning dress will be worn. I may add that Mr. Speaker has already arranged that his secretary will receive the names of hon. Members who wish tickets for themselves and their wives. Similarly the Lord Chancellor and Members of the House of Lords will also be invited to attend. Further, it is contemplated that the general national rejoicing shall be held on Saturday, 19th July. Celebrations will be held in London in which the Navy, Army, Air Force, and various subsidiary services, and the Mercantile Marine will be represented, and in. which American troops who will be passing through London at that time will be invited to take part. Detailed announcements will be made at an early date. The day will be one, it is hoped, of general rejoicing in London and every part of the country, and I hope, also, throughout the Empire. Local bodies and communities will organise their celebrations in their own way.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATY.

VERSIONS IN TWO LANGUAGES

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether, when the full Peace Treaty is published, he will lay upon the Table of the House the French and German translations of the same in order that Members may have an opportunity of comparing the three versions?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: On the ground of expense, it has been decided to lay upon the Table of the House only the English official text of the Treaty. Copies of the
official French text will be obtained from Paris, and placed in the Library of the House of Commons for reference. There is no official German text.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In what language is the Treaty which the Germans have signed— is it French?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: In French and English. It was decided not to publish the text in German.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: If the Germans have signed a Treaty in a language they do not understand, does not the hon. Gentleman see that it would be a splendid excuse for wriggling out of their obligations?

DEFENCE OF REALM ACT

Major NEWMAN: 54
asked the Prime Minister whether he will say if the lapsing of the Defence of the Realm Act will be coincident with the deposit of ratifications of the Peace Treaty; and will he say when it is expected that such deposit will take place?

Sir J. D. REES: 55
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, upon the signing of Peace, restrictions upon brewing, Regulations requiring travellers to register particulars at hotels, persons sending telegrams to give their names and addresses, and other restrictions and Regulations introduced during war will at once be removed, repealed, and abolished?

Mr. BONAR LAW: By the termination of the Present War (Definition) Act, His Majesty may declare what date is to be treated as the date of the termination of the War, and the date so declared is to be as nearly as may be the date of the exchange or deposit of ratifications of the Treaties of Peace. The Defence of the Realm Acts, and the Regulations made there under, will, I understand, lapse on the date so fixed, except in so far as the Regulations may be kept alive by any other Statute.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these restrictions are not regarded as pin-pricks, but as wounds?

Mr. FRANCE: May I ask whether the Government have yet come to any decision?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No decision has yet been taken. It must be after the ratification of the. Treaty

Major NEWMAN: Supposing one country refused to ratify, say China, what would happen?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think arrangements are made that if a certain number of the Great Powers have signed, the Treaty is considered ratified

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR LOAN

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a number of persons are withholding subscriptions from the new War Loan as a protest against the shortage of good beer and the continuance of the 50 per cent. increase in railway fares; and whether he will consider the question of removing these two grievances before the closing of the lists?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I have made careful inquiries into this point and I find there is no evidence that subscriptions to the new Loan are being withheld on account of these alleged grievances. The second part of the question does not therefore, arise.

Mr. BILLING: Would the right hon. Gentleman say from whom he made these inquiries?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: From those who have been engaged in conducting the loan campaign.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman enter into a compact with me that if he will rescind these obsolete war restrictions I will obtain him a satisfactory guarantee of a hundred million bonds?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member could do that at least without any help.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I say that the right hon. Gentleman locks with favour on the scheme I am now propounding for this purpose?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I have no knowledge of the hon. Gentler man's scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEVY ON CAPITAL.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the
proposition, of the Allied Government of Czecho-Slovakia for a levy on capital, beginning at fortunes of 20,000 crowns, and graduated up to 30 per cent, on larger fortunes, with a view to deflating the currency; and if he will call for a report on the working of the levy from our representatives with that government for the information of the House of Commons?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My information on the subject is at present imperfect, but I shall endeavour to get a report on the working of the levy if and when it comes into force.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPITAL REMITTANCES.

Mr. MANVILLE: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that permission is being refused to manufacturing companies in this country to export capital to foreign countries for the purpose of establishing branches in these foreign countries to develop the trade of these British manufacturers in these countries abroad; and will he say that special attention shall be given to such applications for the export of capital and that sanction shall not be unreasonably withheld?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Special consideration is given to applications for licences under Defence of the Realm Regulation 4lD for capital remittances for purposes such as are referred to in the question. Each application must be dealt with on its merits, and no general licences can be given. The necessary consent has been granted in a number of cases, and there is no ground for the suggestion that it is unreasonably withheld.

Mr. MANVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a year ago an identical answer was, I think, provided by the Leader of the House, his predecessor as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to a deputation I had the honour of leading to him, when evidence was forthcoming that unreasonable withholding was a fact? Is it not possible that at the present time and in these circumstances the consent may be unreasonably withheld?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no reason to think that consent is unreasonably withheld; on the contrary, I have reason to think it is not. As to the reference to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, I
hope the hon. Gentleman will not make it a subject of complaint that two colleagues at the distance of a year are giving the same answers.

Mr. MANVILLE: In explanation of my question, may I furnish the right hon. Gentleman with the names in one or two cases where consent has been with held?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly; anybody may furnish me with particulars.

Colonel L'ESTRANGE MALONE: Are these restrictions going to be completely withdrawn on the ratification of Peace?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not contemplate that.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND VALUATION.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it has been officially stated that the valuations of land specified in Section 25 of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, have now been made over the whole surface land of Great Britain, subject to some trifling exceptions, and that the total values, which are the gross values less fixed charges and some other deductions, have been aggregated and amount to slightly more than £5,207,000,000, whether he will now give instructions that the gross values and the full site values, respectively, shall be similarly aggregated and their totals disclosed as soon as possible, or, if they have already been aggregated, whether he will state the aggregate amount of each of them, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The values referred to have not been aggregated, and the information asked for is not available. As a large proportion of the values ascertained are provisional, I am not prepared at the present time to give instructions for the carrying out of work of such magnitude.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SOLDIER CLERKS (WAR OFFICE)

Major PRESCOTT: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the numerical strength of ex-soldier clerks now employed in the War Office; whether any and, if so, bow many of these men have reached the age of sixty years; whether ex-soldier clerks who have attained the age of sixty and
upwards are about to have their engagements terminated after eighteen years' service without the prospect of a pension; and, if so, if he will state whether any prospects of future employment can be held out to them, or whether their claims to a pension are likely to receive favourable consideration?

Mr. FORSTER: I assume that the hon. and gallant Member refers to the ex-soldier clerks on the regular pre-war strength of the War Office, and not to the very large number of ex-soldiers taken into temporary employment during the emergency. On this assumption, the number of men who have attained the normal retiring age of sixty laid down by their original terms of engagement is twenty-six. The period for which it will be necessary in the public interest to extend the employment of these men is considered on its merits on each individual case, and I regret that I am not in a position to hold out any promise of further employment to any of these when their service is terminated. The matter of pension rights for the pre-war staff of ex-soldier clerks is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS

DECEASED SOLDIERS (NEXT-OF-KIN)

Major PRESCOTT: 61.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction which exists amongst the legatees or next-of-kin of deceased soldiers owing to the delay in the distribution of gratuities, which in many cases extends considerably over twelve months; and whether anything can be done to expedite the payments so as to remove the prevailing discontent?

Mr. FORSTER: The war gratuity was not approved until some six months ago, and I am aware that it has not yet been possible to issue it in the very large number of cases of men who have died since the beginning of the War and whose estates have to be reopened for the purpose. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that everything possible is being done to expedite the issue and substantial progress is being made.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESOPOTAMIA (FUEL WOOD)

Lieut. - Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: 63.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that in March, 1919, there was already stored in Mesopotamia sufficient fuel-wood to last the Army of Occupation for ten years; that notwithstanding this, 5,000 extra tons of fuel-wood were shipped from India in March; whether any further shipments have been made since March; and what steps have been taken to deal with the officials responsible for this waste?

Mr. FORSTER: I think my hon. and gallant Friend has been misinformed. A reserve supply of fuel for seventy-five days is maintained in Mesopotamia. Shipments representing twelve days' supply were made above this standard during March, as it is inconvenient to ship this commodity during the monsoon season. I understand that no further shipments have been made since the 27th March.

Lieut.-Colonel WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that there was only seventy-five days' supply in Mesopotamia on the date mentioned?

Mr. FORSTER: Seventy-five days' supply is the normal standard, and shipments representing twelve additional days' supply were made during March.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME OFFICE (OVERTIME PAY)

Mr. ROBERT M'LAREN: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can explain why £l038 was expended in extra remuneration for the year ending 31st March, 1918, to various clerks in the Home Office for work performed out of office hours; why one clerk with salary beginning at £160 and increasing to £200 had £139 4s. for said work; and will he state at what hour these clerks begin work in the morning and finish in the evening, what times are allowed for meals, and what are the average number of hours worked weekly?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The normal office hours of the clerical staff are from ten a.m. to five p.m. with an interval of forty minutes for lunch. For substantial overtime beyond these hours payment is made to clerks in subordinate
positions. As a result of the great increase of work resulting from the War, of the release of men for the forces, and of the inexperience of the temporary clerks engaged as substitutes, a heavy strain fell on the small nucleus of trained officers who remained. The sum of £1,038 represents over 12,700 hours of overtime. The clerk who received £139 4s worked in the course of the year 1,856 hours of overtime, his average weekly hours of work being seventy-eight.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-OFFICERS' TRAINING (MINING EXAMINATIONS)

Mr. R. M'LAREN: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the reason why Lieut. James B. Campbell, Royal Engineers, of the 179th Tunnelling Company who was wounded severely during the War, was not permitted to sit for a manager's certificate at the recent examination, while other officers unwounded, with less practical mining experience, were permitted to sit at the examination; will he state on what principle the Board of Examination make their selection of candidates who have been engaged in tunnelling operations during the War; and if any time served with the forces at these operations is counted as part of their practical experience?

Mr. SHORTT: I am informed that the Board for Mining Examinations were unable to grant permission to this candidate as he did not possess the practical experience in mining required by the Act and rules, and that it is not the case that any other candidate with less experience has been allowed to sit. Time served with tunnelling companies is not counted under the rules as practical experience, but a special concession has been made to candidates who have served a year with the forces during the War, and who before such service have had practical experience in mining, by allowing them to take the examination before the full period of practical experience has been completed.

Mr. M'LAREN: If I give the right hon. Gentleman the particulars of the case, will he consider them?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMINAL JUSTICE JURISDICTION ACT (YOUNG MEN OFFENDERS,).

Lieut. - Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: 69.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that 1,309 young men between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one were during last year sentenced to periods of imprisonment of one month or under, a practice repeatedly condemned both by the Prison Commissioners and social reformers as manufacturing prisoners, he will at once take action, under Section 7 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act of 1914, so that these young persons may be dealt with under the probation system instead of being committed to prison?

Mr. SHORTT: inquiries are constantly being made by the Home Office into the circumstances which have led to the committal of offenders under twenty-one to prison, and though they occasionally show cases where a better alternative was available, it is clear that imprisonment is now rarely imposed except on offenders of such a character that they are unsuitable for probation or for training in a Borstal institution. The efforts which have been made have led to an enormous reduction in the number of males under twenty-one sent to prison. Ten years ago, in 1908– 1909, the number was 7,580; in 1913– 1914 it had fallen to half that figure; and now it is little more than one-sixth. I am anxious that a society should be formed for the work contemplated in Section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1914, but the Home. Office cannot undertake this till normal conditions are restored.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman approach the Treasury with a view to getting this carried out?

Mr. SHORTT: It is being done.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE OFFENDERS (BIRCHING)

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 70.
asked the Home Secretary the number of boys sentenced by the Juvenile Courts to be birched during the years 1917 and 1918 respectively?

Mr. SHORTT The numbers are: For 1917, 5,071; and for 19l8, 3,640.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ALIENS

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 71.
asked the Home Secretary why Otto von Pischof, a naturalised British subject in 1912, who served in the Austro-Hungarian Army for the full period of the War, has now been permitted to return to this country and resume business; and why he should not be prosecuted on a charge of high treason?

Mr. SHORTT: Mr. Pischof returned to this country in order to be present at the inquiry into his case which has been held by the Certificates of Naturalisation (Revocation) Committee. There is no power to refuse a British subject, whether naturalised or natural-born, leave to land in this country. The action to be taken as a result of the Report is now under consideration. The Report of the Committee indicates that, if charged with treason, he would have a good defence.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware the Committee were considering this case in March last? When are they likely to decide?

Mr. SHORTT: Their Report has been received and is now under consideration.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: When is it likely to be completed?

Mr. SHORTT: It is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS IN BRITISH MARKETS

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 72.
asked the Home Secretary (1) whether, in view of the probable influx of commercial travellers from Foreign countries for the exploitation of competing foreign goods in British markets following upon the declaration of Peace, His Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of instituting a system of licences for such foreign travellers, representatives, and agents, with appropriate differentiation between nationals of Allies, neutrals, and countries which have recently been at war with Great Britain; (2) whether he will consider the desirability of bringing into operation a register of all persons entering the ports of the United Kingdom who are engaged in the exploitation of foreign trade in this country, such register to indicate the nationality of the business man, commercial traveller, or agent, as
the case may be, the nature of the industry in the interest of which his or her visits to this country are made, and the particular areas in the United Kingdom in which business operations are contemplated; and whether daily or weekly extracts from the register can be circulated to the Press and supplied to Chambers of Commerce and other business organisations?

Mr. SHORTT: I regret that I am not prepared to adopt the suggestions. Adequate steps are, and will be, taken. under the Aliens Restriction Order to exclude any aliens who cannot produce satisfactory reasons for entering this country. The hon. Member's proposal would require a great deal of complicated Government machinery, and I am not satisfied that they are either necessary or calculated to assist British trade.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the registration of foreign commercial travellers with the necessary details of the firms they represent?

Mr. SHORTT: That will be considered.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue for the guidance of all the necessary qualifications for entrance into this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: 74.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that Captain R. F. G. Carter applied to the Ministry of Pensions for a post in that Ministry, and was selected for a post at the rate of £300 per annum; whether he is also aware that Captain. Carter, after having accepted the post, was questioned as to the amount of retired pay and disability pension of which he is in receipt, and that having given the information he was then informed that 10 per cent. would be deducted from his salary at the Ministry; and whether this principle governs the appointment of disabled officers to the Ministry?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. By paragraph 4 of the Statutory Rules made by the Treasury under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, where civil salary and disability or service pension
together exceed £400 a year the salary must be reduced by 10 per cent., with a minimum of £400 for the total yearly emoluments. This rule is applied universally throughout the Civil Service, and, as I am informed, it can only be amended by legislation.

Major LOWTHER: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question, whether Captain Carter was informed of this Regulation before he was allowed to accept the post?

Sir J. CRAIG: I am sorry he was not informed, but it is an old Regulation affecting all Government Departments. There was a misunderstanding.

Colonel ASHLEY: Surely the Minister is in favour of giving fair treatment to these ex-Service men. Will he not approach the Prime Minister to introduce legislation for doing away with this Regulation?

Sir J. CRAIG: That has already been done. If there are any other questions on this I hope they will be addressed to the Financial Secretary as it is a matter which affects all Government Departments.

Colonel ASHLEY: But it is a disastrous example which is set by the hon. and gallant Member's Department.

Mr. SHAW: Is not this the very thing outside employers were told was disgraceful?

Sir J. CRAIG: It is being rectified.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY PAY OFFICE (DISCHARGES)

Mr. ROWLANDS: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that about 100 discharged and demobilised soldiers who had been given civil employment at the Army Pay Office, Upper Thames Street, were discharged on 27th and 30th June, and whether it is the case that young women employé s are being retained at this office, while many of these demobilised men are now unemployed in circumstances of considerable hard ship?

Mr. FORSTER: I have no knowledge of what my hon. Friend calls attention to, but I have called for an immediate report, and will look to it.

Mr. ROWLANDS: Shall I put the question down for Thursday?

Mr. FORSTER: If the hon. Member likes.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOMERSET LIGHT INFANTRY.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: 37.
asked the Secretary for War whether the 1st Field Service Garrison Battalion of the Somerset Light Infantry, now stationed at Lahore, contains only men who are medically unfit; whether men are going into hospital with fever every day, and most of the cases are men who have been passed unfit for another summer on the plains; and whether anything can be done to send these men to a hill station?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This question has been referred by cable to India. I will let my hon. Friend know as soon as a reply is received.

Oral Answers to Questions — CITY OF LONDON POLICE BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed [No 129.]

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No 129.]

Bill (as amended in the Select Committee), re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision with respect to the British Mercantile Marine Uniform."[British Mercantile Marine Uniform Bill [Lords]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Tynemouth to construct a new street and street improvements; to provide and run trolley vehicles and omnibuses; to make further provision with respect to the acquisition by them of tramways and light railways, and to enable them to work the same; to make further provision with respect to their water undertaking; and for other purposes."[Tynemouth Corporation Bill [Lords.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Tynemouth Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)

STANDING COMMITTEE B

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray and Mr. John Taylor; and had appointed in substitution (for the consideration of the Electricity (Supply) Bill): Sir Evan Jones and Mr. John Williams.

STANDING COMMITTEE D

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Major Henderson.

STANDING COMMITTEE E

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee- E: Lieut.-Colonel Malone.

Reports to lie upon the Table

STANDING COMMITTEE C (SUPPLY)

Mr. TURTON reported from Standing Committee C that they had agreed to the following Resolutions:

Civil Service Estimates, 1919– 20 — Class II.

"1. That a sum, not exceeding £190,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade.
2 That a sum, not exceeding £15,213, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Office of His Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues.
3 That a sum, not exceeding £170,890, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920 for the Salaries and expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow

CORN PRODUCTION ACTS (REPEAL) BILL.

Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [4th June], to be resumed To-morrow

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL

Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, That the Bill be re-committed to a Committed of the Whole House with constructions to eliminate from the scope of the Bill all provisions relating to matter other than railways and canals.
I propose, with the leave of the House, to make a statement with regard to the negotiations which have taken place between a certain group of Members and the Prime Minister. It is within the knowledge of the House that a meeting took place yesterday afternoon at which a considerable number of Members who were opposed to certain portions of this Bill had the privilege of an interview with the Leader of the House. It is impossible I should state what exactly took place there, but it is known that the Leader of the House arranged for a deputation to see the Prime Minister, and accordingly my hon. Friend the Member for Lime-house (Sir W. Pearce), the Member for Greenwich (Lieut. - Commander Benn), and the Member for one of the Divisions of Glasgow (Sir W. Raeburn), with myself, attended last night on the Prime Minister, the Lord Privy Seal, the Home Secretary, and the Minister-designate of Ways and Communications, in order to discuss with them certain Clauses in the Bill to which we objected.
I feel it would not be right that the House should not know, and I think my right hon. Friend concurs in the conclusion which was arrived at that meeting. I desire to say that, of course, we four Back Bench Members have no power whatever to compromise the views of any Member of this House. I state at once that we were not plenipotentiaries.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: As the Mover of the Resolution which constituted my hon. Friend and his colleagues the representatives of the meeting to which he has referred, I desire to say that they were fully constituted as representatives.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.

Mr. HOGGE: On a point of Order, Is it usual for a Government decision
with regard to a Bill to be communicated to the House by a private Member? Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House not going to put to the House the position from the Government's point of view?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): Most certainly. Either I or another member of the Government will do so; but my hon. Friend has risen to move the re-committal of the Bill, and I should have thought it was quite in order to make any statement he thinks right on the general subject. I shall also make a statement.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I need hardly say I would gladly have given way to the Leader of the House, but I do not think there is any Motion on which he could make a statement except that which I have down, and I thought the House would wish to hear a statement at the outset. The two main points put before the Ministers last night were: First, the question of the docks and harbours, and, secondly, the roads. As to the question of docks and harbours, a Clause was agreed to. Probably it will be for the general convenience if I read the Clause, as it is not on the Order Paper. I should say that the main gravamen of our attack on the Bill was Clause 3, which gives large powers to the Minister to take possession of and control docks and harbours. The new Clause is as follows:
Nothing in Section 3 of this Act shall apply to any harbour, dock or pier undertaking established by Act of Parliament, including the Manchester Ship Canal but not including a harbour, dock or pier forming part of a railway undertaking, or to the owners of any such undertaking without the consent of such owners, but if at any time during the two years after the passing of this Act the Minister shall consider that it is desirable in the national interest that the transport facilities and accommodation at the harbour, or at any dock or pier of the owners should be improved or extended or that the method of working should be altered, the Minister may by Order, for the purposes aforesaid, require the owners to execute or do, within a reasonable time, such improvement or extension or alteration in the method of working as the Order may prescribe, and may for that purpose confer on the owners any such powers of acquiring land or easements or constructing works as are mentioned in paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of that Section.
Provided that if the owners of such undertaking consider that any such requirements of the Minister are likely to be seriously injurious to the undertaking, or to the trade of the port, they may appeal, in the case of an undertaking situate in England or Wales to the Lord Chief Justice of England, or in the case of an undertaking situate in Scotland, to the Lord President of the Court of Session, or, in the case of an
undertaking situate in Ireland, to the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and if it appears to such Lord Chief Justice or Lord President that a prima facie case is made out that the requirements of the Minister would be so injurious as aforesaid he shall forthwith appoint an arbitrator to hold an immediate inquiry, and if the arbitrator reports that the carrying out of the requirements of the Minister will be so injurious as aforesaid the Minister shall revoke his requirements, without prejudice to the power of the Minister to issue a new Order.
The Clause was concurred in by my hon. Friend who represents more particularly the dock interests, and I think it will be agreed that the Clause is both fair to the Minister and the docks and harbours. It takes away the right of the Minister to take possession of the docks and harbours and exercise all the powers under Clause 3, and it gives him power to require improvements in docks for purposes of transport, but with power to the dock authorities to appeal to an arbitrator if they think it would be injurious to their undertaking or the trade of the port.
With regard to roads, I do not think; need read the whole of that Clause, because the Prime Minister and the other Ministers agreed to accept the contention of the new Clause which stands in my name on page 1410 of the Notice Paper. They accept (a), (b), and (e). In short, the new Clause sets up a special Roads Advisory Committee, comprised of ten members, five to be nominated by the Minister after consultation with the local authorities of the country, and five to be nominated by him after consultation with the interests concerned. That Committee is
For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister with respect to and for safeguarding any interests affected by the exercise of the powers and the performance of his duties under this Act in relation to roads and bridges and vehicles and traffic thereon.''
May I say to those hon. Friends of mine working with me, with regard to roads, that it does not give us all we ask for, but I trust my hon. Friends will accept that as a useful compromise, and I should like quite frankly to acknowledge on behalf of those Members who have been working with me, the very great courtesy extended last night by the Prime Minister and his colleagues, and I hope they will agree that in the discussion we approached this matter from the national interests and not from any sectional point of view. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Question !"] At all events, I think the House will agree when it has heard more of this Debate, that the Government is satisfied in the national in-
terests with the proposals which have been made. There is only one other thing I have to say, and that is, that those were the two main points discussed, and all the other Amendments on the Paper were reserved for discussion in this House. I gave an undertaking, so far as I could personally, that there should be no fractious opposition to the further progress of the Bill, but that all the Amendments on the Paper should be discussed on their merits. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will be able to be present during our discussions, and I feel sure that there are several Amendments on the Paper which the Government on re-consideration will accept.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Everyone who is accustomed to get Bills through this House knows that there are difficulties in making any statement outside the ordinary routine. Personally I see no objection whatever to the course which has been adopted by my hon. Friend and it has this great advantage that, under the present rules, a speech of ten minutes only is allowed in proposing it and a speech of ten minutes in reply. I am sure the House as a whole will realise that what my hon. Friend has said, and what I say now, on behalf of the Government, does not meanin the least, as is suggested by some who have interrupted, that there should be any attempt whatever to square this matter behind the backs of the House of Commons. Nothing of the kind. The Government have from the first regarded this Bill as one of vital importance to this country.
4.0 P.M
In addition to that, there was no part of the programme put forward by the Prime Minister and, so far, by myself, on which we dwelt more persistently than that after the difficulty which had occurred during the "War, nothing was more essential to re-estabiish the welfare of this country than to have a comprehensive system of transport. That has been our object. But any Government in any democratic country dealing with any legislative body must always realise that there are two things in connection with any Bill which has to be secured. In the first place, the Bill must be one which commends itself to the legislative body to which it is submitted, but that in itself would be of no use unless the second condition was also fulfilled, that the Bill as accepted should be such as to enable the
Government to carry out the measures, the objects, for which the Bill was introduced That has been our guiding principle. We are anxious to carry all sections of the House with us in this measure, because obviously there is nothing whatever in it which should arouse any of the old party feeling. It is simply a question of facing a great problem, a problem which has developed into a great evil which must be dealt with in the most efficient way in the interests of the State. That is what we are aiming at. In dealing with it the Government, in the introduction of the Bill and in its passage through Committee, have been faced with this difficulty. They knew perfectly well that it was a very ambitious measure, a measure which from the nature of the case must arouse, if not hostility, intense fear, and criticism, not of vested interests in the ordinary sense of the word, not of private vested interests, but because it touched the local feeling and the local patriotism and pride which, as much as the House of Commons itself, is one of the essential features of this country. We realise that. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend (Sir Eric Geddes) was a3 anxious as any Member of the House is not to insist on anything being in that Bill which interfered with these local authorities unless in his opinion it was absolutely necessary for the successful working of the measure.
Our difficulty was this: Any Bill which deals with such subjects must contain Clauses, comprehensive Clauses, because you never know at what stages difficulty will arise. It must, therefore, seem to give to the central Government powers which it was never intended to give, but which are only there to be used in case of emergency, where quick action is required. What we desired throughout and what we have arranged now is to bring into the Bill, not merely the assertion of the Government as to what our intentions are, but definite words which show what has been from the beginning our intention. There has never been any intention to run these great dock companies by administration from London. What we aimed at was to have some central, co-ordinated policy of the whole transport and to secure that object my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Geddes) thought it impossible to get this comprehensive policy if the docks, through which so large a percentage of the traffic passes, are not to be within that scheme
of comprehensive transport. That is our object. The difficulty was to frame words which, while recognising the intention of the Government to continue this local effort and this local machinery, would yet make sure that the new Department would not be hampered in its work. Our desire was to secure that, and at the same time if we could to make it plain that there would be no frivolous or arbitrary interference with the work of these local bodies.
My hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) read the terms of the Amendment which was agreed to last night, and when it comes to be introduced I think it will be agreed that we have to a large extent secured that double object. We have, I believe, made sure that my right hon. Friend will be able to do his work without frivolous interference, and, on the other hand, we have made it plain on the face of the Bill that there is no intention whatever to take over these local undertakings and run them as a branch of some Ministry in Whitehall. There is nothing in that I am sure which would offend the susceptibilities of any section in this country. We desire to have a workable Bill, and everything that has happened since the introduction of the measure has convinced me more and more that a measure of this kind is absolutely vital if we are to get the industry of this country going again on a satisfactory basis. It is not a question of private enterprise against State enterprise. This particular Bill was introduced for one purpose only, a purpose with which every Member should sympathise, of recognising that our transport question is a vital interest in the country and to secure the best method of dealing efficiently and quickly with that service. That is all we want. I hope the House will take that in the spirit of the hon. Members whom we saw last night. No Government loves criticism of a Government measure, but every Government is accustomed to it. It is the universal experience, even at a time of ordinary party Government, and it is much more true now. When a party Government introduces a measure it very rarely has any opposition from its own supporters; but it is absolutely essential, and we have tried to do it, to convince the House of Commons as a whole that this is a measure which is urgently required and is a vital necessity to this country, and that what we have got to
do is to recognise there may be risks in it; but certainly if we do not attempt something, if we allow things to drift along as they are, with all the consequences which have resulted from the War, we are heading straight to disaster. With these few words I sit down, but I do wish to make the House believe, what is the truth, that the Government in regard to this measure have no object of any kind in view except to give to the country as quickly as possible the best comprehensive system of transport that it is in their power to give.

Question put, and negatived.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE — (Accounts, Statistics, and Returns.)

"For the period of two years after the passing of this Act it shall be the duty of the owners of any railway, light railway, tramway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, or pier undertaking, and the authority or person liable to maintain any road or bridge, to furnish to the Minister, in such manner and form as he may direct, such accounts, statistics, and returns as he may require for the purpose of his powers and duties under this Act."— [Sir E. Geddes.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

The MINISTER (Designate) of WAYS and COMMUNICATIONS (Sir Eric Geddes): I beg to move,
That the Clause be now read a second time.''
This Clause was the subject of discussion in Committee, but was eventually ruled by the Chairman to be out of order, and was reintroduced. It speaks for itself. If, during the two years that the Bill allows for the consideration of these matters, we are to arrive at a satisfactory understanding as to their working it is essential that we should have statistics and figures. The Clause follows, not so drastically as appeared in the Port of London Bill, the precedent of the Government being able to call for such statistics and figures as they require and while it is a matter of great importance for the undertaking that these figures and statistics should not be unduly voluminous, it is absolutely essential that we should have power to call for them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, to add the words,
(2) It shall on and after the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty, be obligatory on all highway authorities to keep their records and books of account in such manner and form as to show expenditure solely incurred and made on the construction, reconstruction, im-
provement, or maintenance of roads, bridges, and culverts to meet the requirements of wheeled traffic separately and distinctly from any expenditure incurred in executing work on or to roads, bridges, and culverts, for purposes or reasons including sidewalks, cleansing, watering, lighting, sewerage, subways and public conveniences wholly or in part other than to make provision to carry wheeled traffic, and to furnish to the Minister from time to time with certified extracts, copies, or analyses of such records and accounts.
The object is to ensure that the local authorities shall keep apart the cost of maintaining the highways and the costs of maintaining other things. It sometimes happens that certain moneys are allotted to road improvement. When the Petrol Duty was established some few years back that was allotted to road improvement, and in 1915 it was taken away and put into the general funds, and now that the War is over we have great hopes that we shall get it back. In the road account of many highway authorities they jumble together all kinds of things which are not properly road matters, such as subways, sewers, and public conveniences— all very good in their way, but they ought not to be paid for out of money allocated to the upkeep of roads. It is in order to give my right hon. Friend the authority to demand that the accounts shall be kept in this particular manner that I move this Amendment.

Mr. HOUSTON: I bog to second the Amendment.

Sir E. GEDDES: I have the fullest possible sympathy with the Mover of this Amendment in his desire to obtain this division of the accounts of expenditure on the roads and auxiliary matters. At the-same time I hope he will not press the Amendment. There is power to-day to require a division of the account, and if there is not power when the Clause which I moved myself just now is passed by the House there will be power in this Bill to obtain this. There is no difference between us on principle, but I should much prefer that we should not pick out one particular item and say that certain accounts should be kept in a certain way. I give an assurance on behalf of the Government that if this Bill becomes law we will get the accounts in that way, but I do not wish to stereotype the demand, because we might want to amend it in some small point.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I accept the assurance, and as: leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major BARNES: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words
Provided that nothing in this Section shall remove the liability of the owners of any railway to render the accounts required under the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act, 1911.
When this Bill was in Committee the Home Secretary gave an assurance that there was nothing in the Bill as it then stood that interfered with the provisions of the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act, 1911, as to the obligation of the railway companies to make up their accounts,: in a certain form. This Amendment is simply put down in order that we may get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that, as the Bill will stand after the acceptance of his new Clause, which I hope will be accepted by the House, the same result will follow; in other words, that there is nothing in the addition he proposes to make to the Bill which will relieve the owners of railways of their liability to make up their accounts in the form laid down in that Act. It is of the utmost importance that accounts should be rendered in the future as they have been rendered hitherto under that Act. Otherwise the only basis for comparison that exists between the working of the railways before and after they come into the possession of the right hon. Gentleman will be gone. I think the House will realise the importance of that point when they come to consider, as they will later on, the question of compensation. Compensation has to be arrived at by comparison with the value at the end of the period during which the railways will have had the advantage of being under the right hon. Gentleman's administration and the value before that period. The only real evidence that we have as regards the latter is in the accounts which have been returned under the Act referred to, and it seems to me to be most important that we should preserve the continuation of the accounts in that form.

Major HAYWARD: I beg to second the Amendment. As the hon. and gallant Member who moved it has said, it is most important that we should have these accounts in the same form as hitherto. It may be that there is nothing in this Bill which removes the obligation to continue to supply them, and, if that is so, this Amendment will, of course, be unnecessary; but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will either give us an assurance that
the accounts will continue to be rendered as in the past or that he will accept the Amendment.

Sir E. GEDDES: I entirely agree with everything that has been said by the Proposer and Seconder of this Amendment. I am advised by the Parliamentary draftsman that nothing in this Bill affects the Railway Companies Accounts Act at all, and that there is no power in this Bill to alter the provisions regarding those statutory returns. Apart from that, there is no intention of altering them, and, indeed, we should be very ill-advised to do so.

Major BARNES: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn Proposed Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE —(Saving for Statutory Harbour, Dock, and Pier Authorities.)

Nothing in this Act shall apply to any harbour, dock, or pier undertaking established by Act of Parliament or to the owners of any such undertaking without the consent of such owners, save that, if at any time during the period of two years after the passing of this Act the Minister shall consider that it is desirable in the national interest that the transport facilities and accommodation at the harbour or at any dock or pier of the owners should be improved or extended or that the method of working should be altered, the Minister may by Order, for the purposes aforesaid, require the owners to execute or do within a reasonable time such improvement, or extension, or alteration in the method of working as the Order may prescribe. Provided that, if the owners consider that any such requirements of the Minister are unreasonable they may appeal to an arbitrator to be appointed in the case of an undertaking situate in England or Wales by the Lord Chief Justice of England, in the case of any undertaking situate in Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, and in the case of an undertaking situate in Ireland by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and the arbitrator may annul the Order or allow the same with or without modification.—[Sir W. Pearce.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Sir W. PEARCE: I beg to move, in substitution for this Clause, the Clause which has already been read by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Joynson-Hicks).

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot do that. He could withdraw the Clause which appears on the Paper and then move it as an Amendment. He could not move the other Clause without having given notice.

Sir W. PEARCE: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."

Sir W. RAEBURN: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Sir E. GEDDES: As the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham have already told the House, this Clause formed the subject of discussion last night and this morning between the Government and those representing a large block of Members of the House. The Clause which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham read has been agreed between us, and is now submitted to the House. In order to comply with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I propose to move it in the form of six Amendments to the Clause which the hon. Member for Limehouse has just moved. I need not repeat what has already been said by the Leader of the House, but it will be seen that in regard to matters which would ordinarily affect the working -of these undertakings, provision is made for the issue by the Minister of orders, unless the owners of the dock, harbour, or pier consider that it is really a matter which is seriously prejudicial to their undertaking. In that event they have a power of appeal to an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord President of the Court of Session, as the case may be, and he only appoints an arbitrator and allows a hearing if a primâ facie case is made out that the order will be seriously prejudicial.
Accordingly, I beg to move, after the word "in" ["Nothing in this Act"], to insert "Section 3 of."

Sir F. FLANNERY: On a point of Order. I have an Amendment, of which I have given notice, to make an insertion on the first page of the typed copy of the Clause

Mr. SPEAKER: The only Amendment now before the House is to insert the words "Section 3 of."

Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not think that this is a very satisfactory way of conducting the business of Parliament. It is exceedingly difficult to follow. The Government have come to an agreement with three hon. Members of this House. Those Gentlemen enjoy a great deal of confidence, but they have no title to pledge the House in a matter of this kind. I know that really the procedure is perfectly regular, but still it is a very unusual use of the forms of the House to move a
new Clause in the form of an Amendment instead of putting it on the Order Paper. I think it is very liable to abuse, because it destroys the value of the rule in regard to new Clauses. I think it would have been far more satisfactory to re-commit the Bill in respect of these new Clauses, and let the matter be properly discussed in Committee. To take advantage of the new Standing Order to allow ex parte speeches in this way is really a most outrageous abuse of the forms of the House. I venture to think that we ought to have more time to consider this Clause, and I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot accept that. I should consider it an abuse of the Rules of the House. There has been nothing whatever unusual in regard to the Clause to which the Noble Lord takes exception. What the Government have done is to suggest certain Amendments to it. This one certainly seems to be in a very unobjectionable form. It is only to insert the words "Section 3 of" after the word "in."

Lord H. CECIL: But it is virtually a new Clause.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the Amendments of the Government are accepted I shall have to put the Question that the Clause as Amended be added to the Bill and if any exception is taken to the Government having accepted this Clause as amended that will be the proper time to raise the question.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir E. GEDDES: I beg to move, after the word "Parliament," to insert the words
including the Manchester Ship Canal but not including a harbour, dock or pier forming part of a railway undertaking.

Sir F. BAN BURY: On a point of Order. I should like to ask whether, as the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the Clause as a whole, it would be in order for us now to make remarks on the Clause as a whole, or whether we should wait until you put the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would be obviously the better course to wait until then. We cannot yet say whether the House will or will not accept the Amendment.

Sir F. BAN BURY: It is difficult to deal with these Amendments unless we do deal with the Clause as a, whole, because we have only just seen them and it is almost impossible to see what their effect will be until we decide whether or not we agree with the Clause as a whole.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question here is whether a statutory dock or pier undertaking includes the Manchester Ship Canal.

Sir F. BANBURY: I have nothing to say on that, but I may ask why railway companies are left out? The Bill, as it originally stood, dealt with these undertakings as a whole, and the same justice, or whatever it may be called, should be meted out to all the undertakings. A different course is now being pursued in regard to certain of these undertakings, but surely the railways have just as much right to an appeal as the docks.

Mr. STEVENS: The Port of London Authority is a statutory railway company.

Mr. WATERSON: I am exceedingly sorry that the Government have found it necessary to bring in an Amendment of this kind. Upon reading the Press one was astounded to find that the Government had capitulated to private interests who had been endeavouring to work up that opposition which they desired the Government to think there was but which in reality there was not.
If we are to have a Transport Bill I submit that it should be a Transport Bill and not half a Transport Bill. I should have preferred, at any rate, if the Government had been sufficiently courageous, without introducing Amendments of this kind, to have stood by the Bill as it passed through the Grand Committee stage, and left the decision of the House to be given for or against the Government. The Government is courageous sometimes when particular interests are to be conserved. If they had been courageous on this occasion I am convinced, in my own mind that the country would have been at their back. We were told at the last election that the Government had a policy of reconstruction. This Transport Bill is part and parcel of that policy I regret very much that the Minister-designate and his colleagues should weaken the position, notwithstanding all that has been said about him in the country, by Amendments of this kind. It has been said that the proposal put forward in the Bill is of a burean-
cratic nature. We have heard that— much of it— both in the Grand Committee and in the country. I want to submit that it is not so bureaucratic as many hon. Members of this House imagine. This Amendment, I believe, will destroy the advantages accruing from the proper co-ordination of the system of transport in the country. If we can control the railways, why not the ports, canals, piers, and liar-hours, and not a part of them?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is discussing the Clause as a whole. The only question now is as to whether an exception is to be made in the case of the Manchester Ship Canal, or whether that is to be included as a dock, harbour, or pier. The question he is discussing does not arise on this Amendment.

Sir H. NIELD: I should like to remove the impression apparent in the last speech, as to the reason it is proposed to differentiate between the public dock undertakings managed wholly by popularly-elected authorities, like the Port of London, the Mersey Board, and other large dock centres and trusts already in the hands of popularly-elected Boards.

Mr. WATERSON: By the people is that?

Sir H. NIELD: Selected by public authorities elected by the people— in the case of London and Liverpool by the payers of dock dues. Why is it desired to differentiate between, those and the docks held by railway companies is that the railway companies are to be left under the control that they have been under for the last few years of a joint committee responsible to the Minister. These docks form part of the railway system: therefore they are obviously part and parcel of the undertakings to be subjected to the control of the Minister as part of the railway system to which they belong. That is a very different thing from going in and interfering with large bodies of independently-managed concerns. The Clause here is, I am very glad to say, to be accepted by the Government. It was only resisted in the Grand Committee for the time being, because I do not believe it was fully understood or appreciated. We have had the Leader of the House making it perfectly clear that it never entered the minds of the Government to manage the docks from Whitehall, or to concede anything more than the power of coordination. This Amendment is a thing
which, if carried out, will remove popular anxiety in a way that perhaps some Members can appreciate, but will go to the saving of the London docks themselves. It is impossible to suppose that the trade of this country, the trade even of this large port, can be continued if it is to be hampered by interference in every small detail. The Amendment to the Clause prescribes the limits tinder which that control should be exercised. I do not think there is anybody affected in this House who would not, therefore, accept any proposal which makes for the coordination of the traffic of this country and the transport of that traffic which will not be readily and cheerfully accepted by those who direct these large undertakings. This Clause I trust will be adopted.

Mr. SEXTON: I confess to being grievously disappointed at the humiliating climb-down of the representatives of the Government on this Bill. I will try to keep within the Order of Procedure that you, Mr. Speaker, have just laid down. I hope I shall not be accused of going outside if I point out that we were sitting for eight weeks upstairs on this Committee from eleven in the morning and we had all these arguments put before us. Time after time, in the Divisions, it was only the vote of the Labour Members of that Committee that saved the face of the Government.

Lieut.-Colonel W. THORNE: Now they have thrown us over.

Mr. SEXTON: Yes, they have thrown us over now to meet the wishes of a very narrow vested interest. Base ingratitude is displayed in the fact that all our services are to be thrown to the wolves. I, for one, vehemently protest against what I consider is a base betrayal of confidence. The hon. And learned Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Nield) put the case in a nutshell. Why should the Manchester Ship Canal receive a preference over any other establishment that owns docks? To-day in Liverpool, as in other ports in the country, the cry has gone forth that there is congestion at the docks. Those whose interest it serves are endeavouring to put the blame on the back of the dock labourer, who, they say, is "ca'ing canny." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] That is a deliberate lie. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order !"] Whoever fathers the lie, I want to say here; it is a deliberate lie. If the dockers worked any harder than
they do now the quays would be more congested than ever before, because the stuff is there and it cannot be taken away. I am no advocate of the policy of "ca'canny." I detest the word, but I do say that the blame ought to be placed in the right quarter. The blame is solely due to the chaotic condition of the transport that plies to-day between the railways and the docks.
Dealing with the Manchester Ship Canal, why should it be singled out for preference? The statement was in the Press to-day, and yesterday, and all last week, that owing to the congested nature of the docks at Liverpool ships were being diverted to Manchester. It has been said that Manchester soon will claim to be the staple port of Lancashire, and Liverpool will be a port on the Manchester Ship Canal. If this is going to be allowed, then I admit there are some grounds for that view, and now that ships are to be diverted from Liverpool to Manchester, which is a terminal port. If the principle is admitted for Manchester, we will have London dock authorities coming next day and saying: "A precedent has been established by the House of Commons. Why shut us up?" and away goes the whole thing. I want, shortly, to say, so far as I am concerned— and I think I speak for my colleagues— that we shall vigorously resist every Amendment that is moved in the direction of even weakening the position that was strengthened, carried, and fought for in the Committee upstairs.

Mr. REMER: The hon. Member for St. Helens, as we know, has been right through the War, is at the present time one of the most patriotic Members of this House. But I think that I can claim to know not only the position of the Liverpool docks, but also the character and present attitude of the Liverpool docker quite as well as he does, and I know the present position probably bettor than he does.

Mr. SEXTON: I do not think you do.

Mr. REMER: I say this deliberately, and I know; I have been amongst them. I say that at the present time one of the principal reasons for the congestion is the deliberate action of the Liverpool dockers in preventing a full day's work being done.

Mr. SEXTON: That is not true.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the hon. Member prepared to face the Liverpool dockers and make that assertion?

Mr. REMER: I repeat that the position at the Liverpool docks is entirely caused through the "ca' canny" of the Liverpool dockers. I make that assertion.

Mr. S EXTON: You cannot prove it.

Mr. REMER: I believe I am making a statement which is perfectly correct.

An HON. MEMBER: We can all say that.

Mr. REMER: I believe the hon. Member for St. Helens would do very great service to his country if he would go amongst the Liverpool dockers and tell them that at the present time.

Mr. SEXTON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I only want to explain—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has made his speech, and now he is being answered.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: On a point of Order. As one of the Members for Liver-pool, may I ask whether the hon. Member for Macclesfield is entitled to make such sweeping assertions without bringing forward any proof?

Mr. REMER: I only rose to say briefly that I have come absolutely in contact with the Liverpool docker, and I have a very considerable appreciation of him.

Mr. SEXTON: I worked as a docker before you were born.

Mr. REMER: I can only say this, that, so far as my own position is concerned, I have the greatest admiration for the Liverpool dockers, if they are appealed to by the right people. But there are certain influences at work at the present time, as the hon. Member for St. Helens knows very well —

Mr. SEXTON: I do not know anything about it.

Mr. REMER: I appeal to the better sense and feeling of the Members on the Labour Benches to bring a better spirit into the Liverpool dockers at the present time, because, unless the Liverpool labourer does produce a full day's work, the position of the Liverpool docks is going to be very serious indeed.

Sir F. FLANNERY: I think it is extremely unfortunate that, in discussing the particular Amendment before us, an acrimonious discussion such as has occurred in the last two speeches should have arisen. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down claims to understand Liverpool I am a native of Liverpool I have worked around the docks in Liverpool in almost all capacities as an engineer, and I claim to speak with authority and knowledge on the state of affairs there. The hon. Member opposite is quite wrong in stating that that is the sole cause, or even the' main cause, of congestion in Liverpool.

Mr. REMER: I only said one of them.

Sir F. FLANNERY: The hon. Member said they were the cause of the "ca' canny'' policy which he alleges to exist. I hold in my hand a letter which I received referring to the congestion in Liverpool, which is most apposite to the question of the exclusion of the Manchester Ship Canal:
Writing as practical dockmen, employed by a large firm of corn brokers and merchants, and whose business is confined to the docks and its environs, we are desirous of bringing to your notice the chaotic methods of working which obtain in this port. The following are a few examples:
(1) Cartage.— At least 60 per cent. of the time of both horse and motor vehicles is occupied in standing on the dock estate, dock road, railways, warehouses, etc., awaiting their turn to load or lighten. This waste of time could be avoided with a consequent reduction in the number of vehicles required.
(2) Barging — Barges are kept waiting four and five days, in many cases even longer, to load directly from or discharge their cargoes into ocean steamers.
(3)Railways, Warehouses, Coal Storage, etc — It is a common occurrence for carts to wait for six and seven hours waiting turn. The waste of time is inconceivable to those unacquainted with the working of these places.
(4) Dock Congestion — This is caused to a great extent by the number of railway trucks, carts, etc., which encumber the dock estate, pre venting a quick exchange of vehicles. Gangs of men are kept idle in many cases for half-an- hour or more while a loaded cart or wagon is drawn away, and replaced with an empty one for them to proceed with.
(5) Grain Warehouse — (a) Alexandra and Coburg. — At neither of these two magnificant granaries are there facilities for direct discharge of grain from ship to warehouse (except for small coasting steamers).
(b) Waterloo Grain Warehouse — This warehouse is owned by the Dock Board, and is one of the finest in the country, but its value is reduced by there being very little water in the dock on which it stands. It is filled mainly from barges which load from ocean steamers. Deep water accommodation could be obtained by widening the entrance, and deepening the sill of the dock.
827
(6) Coasting Berths.— All the berths allocated to the coasting trade are appropriated by the regular coasting lines, and they are situated altogether in the centre of the dock system, and cannot be entered from north or south without vessels enter the river."
They go on to say:
The chief thing lacking is some co-ordinating authority concerning itself with transport conceived as a whole.
Those allegations may be well founded in every detail, or they may not, but they are sufficiently strong and convincing to show that the allegation that the whole of this congestion in Liverpool, which is terrible, is caused by the unwillingness of the workers is unfounded. I do not say there is no complaint against the workers. My hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) has complained himself, and will no doubt complain again, but to allege that the whole cause is to be laid on the back of the workers is entirely a mistake, to use an extremely mild expression. Having disposed completely of this allegation, I want to deal with the subject raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens. He has informed the House that the Committee upstairs sat for eighteen days over a period of two months. I was one of those who sat on that Committee, and I took a very painstaking part in its deliberations. I do not think there was a single Division or item of debate in which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens and his associates did not take exactly the same side.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) suffered a good deal in those discussions from the joint action of the hon. Member for St. Helens and myself and I notice that he confirms that statement. It is from that standpoint that I want to address myself to the arguments of the hon. Member for St. Helens. He is aggrieved, and says that there has been a betrayal. If he will consider the matter logically, and from its foundation, he will find that is not so. When the Bill was first introduced and received its Second Reading, it gave the Minister the widest possible powers, and ho could do practically what he pleased to harbours and docks. He could take them over and take charge of them, and although, as the Leader of the House has explained, that was not the intention of the Government, yet those powers did exist. In Committee it was pointed out that some advisory body and some coordinating method of utilising the experience of the existing members of dock
boards should be provided. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens and his associates all agreed with that, and in the result the Committee added what they call advisory councils, or committees, to work with the Minister; and not only this, they agreed to a panel of experts in addition, who were to be nominated by the various interests concerned in the welfare and prosperity of the docks.
That was the arrangement as it left the Committee, and it was obtained largely by the support of my hon. Friend and those associated with him. What is the arrangement to-day? It is that these advisory committees and this panel of experts shall continue in existence to this extent— that the same persons who formed the harbour boards shall remain at their present duties. That change associates with the Minister the same experienced men and individuals— in most instances in Liverpool— who would have been associated with him under the scheme of my hon. Friend and myself What is the difference? The Minister will not take over the primary possession of some of these undertakings. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens favours nationalisation, but I do not, and we differ there.

Mr. SEXTON: The proposal is to exclude the Manchester Ship Caal from the provisions of Clause 2.

Sir F. FLANNERY: The allegation was that this proposed change amounted to a betrayal of those who supported the Government upstairs, and I want to convince my hon. Friend that the only change which has arisen on account of this new arrangenemt is that the proprietorship of these particular harbours and docks does-not change its personnel, and will be substantially the same, and they will assist the Minister; but the foundation of nationalisation which my hon. Friend desires, if it was a foundation, has been removed. That is all the change that has arisen, and is that change a fair basis for my hon. Friend opposite to allege treachery or bad faith on the part of the Government and those associated with them? I ask my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches to clear their minds of mere prejudice. They may be disappointed that the nationalisation part of it has been changed, but let them clear their minds of prejudice, and recognise that the action of the Committee upstairs has only been extended, and that this Clause, as it stands, with certain Amendments
which I hope will be accepted, is well worthy of the support of the House generally, because it moves in the same direction as a great deal of the action of the Committee upstairs.

Mr. WIGNALL: This change which has just been announced has come about so suddenly that one can scarcely grip the position, or understand all that it means. We took an active interest in the Committee stage, and for eighteen days we more or less followed the deliberations and watched as clearly as we could the development of the stages through which the Bill was passing. When we hear on the Labour benches that certain gentlemen who were vigorously opposed to certain points in the Bill suddenly change their attitude as the result of an interview with the Government, which has brought about an entirely new condition of affairs, and the first we hear of it is either a small paragraph in the newspapers; and when this is suddenly thrust into our hands this afternoon, you can understand that we are rather suspicious of these gentlemen, a certain number of whom have been prepared to wreck, the Bill from the first page to the last.
5.0 P.M.
Do not let us make any mistake about it. There were certain Members on that Committee who came there with a full, firm, and fixed determination to wreck this Bill by any means in their power, but they failed. We expected a very wholehearted and strong Debate in the House, but in the Bill as it left the Committee with no alterations, no variations, and sometimes a substitution of one or two words, we may not have observed as keenly as other people who are deeply interested and cleverer than we are their effect. It takes time to consider these points. These people very vigorously opposed the Bill, and the inclusion of the docks and harbours, and more particularly the inclusion of roads, and when these gentlemen who have been so vehemently declaiming and trying to destroy the principles of the Bill day after day and hour after hour are suddenly converted and try to make us believe that all is well, and are perfectly satisfied, at least it makes us suspicious of them, and suspicious of some of the alterations that have been introduced. If it had been possible to have received a copy of the proposed Amendment a day or so ago, we also could have had a consultation with the Government,
and we might have been able to thrash the question out and then we might have been satisfied as well. We were robbed of that opportunity, and I say, without any apology, that, when receiving this deputation as representing the interests that were opposed to the Bill, they should at least have given us the opportunity of hearing what the discussion was all about, and they should have explained to us in the fullest detail precisely what was intended, and possibly that would have satisfied us, and would have obviated the necessity of inflicting the speeches on the House which we have heard to-day. It may be all right, but I certainly am prepared to say that the exclusion of the Manchester Ship Canal, with all its great waterways and its wharves and its great dock facilities, ought not to be treated exceptionally to any other docks in the Kingdom.
Once you begin to make exceptions it is the exception that introduces the principle that will ruin the whole concern. In Committee we vigorously fought over the Bill as a whole, and in Committee we tried time after time to point out that the very success of the measure would be to include all parts of the United Kingdom. Why is the Manchester Ship Canal to be exempted? I want to admit that I am not clear of comprehension as to what it all means. I am in doubt, and I believe the majority of the Members in the House are in doubt, as to exactly all that is implied in it, and we only want fuller and more complete information. However, we are here to oppose vigorously unless, in the course of the Debate, we are satisfied that the principle has not been altered, and the principles in the Bill have not been changed, and the method of working has not been altered. I was not surprised at the statement made by the Leader of the House to-day. I think I caused a bit of a laugh on one occasion when I almost uttered The very words that the Leader of the House employed to-day as to the necessity of keeping up the machinery for the working of the great concerns to be taken over. I want to conclude my remarks by replying to a statement that has been made here to-day. I do not know what bearing it has on the question we are discussing. I do not know how it could be applied. I refer to the speech of the hon. Member opposite who so violently attacked the dockers. The dockers do not
possess all the virtues of the universe; neither do they possess all the vices. There are a few of the virtues which they have a right to claim, and I dare say there is a good deal of the other thing. But it applies to the employers, and possibly the vices may be more magnified want to say, in justification of my protest against the statement here to-day, that I have worked for years among dock workers, and I pretty well know them all over the country An hon. Member has read a statement. If you do not know, let me say that the docker does not control the work. The docker does not organise the business. He has to take his instructions from somebody who superintends and supervises the work, and that statement of the carts a waiting for hours to be unloaded and the trucks waiting to be filled, or something of that kind, I say, is the most damaging and most complete condemnation of the management of our docks that I have ever heard. A man cannot do the work as he likes, where he likes, and when he likes. He has to be at his job, and if he is not there when the foreman comes along he is ordered pretty quickly to clear out. But to have this great mass of confusion as we have heard declared by the hon. Gentleman is the most complete condemnation of the method of managing our docks that I have ever heard in all my life. Let me say in conclusion that the docker is as honourable a man as you will find anywhere, taking him in the rough, which is as he is. He is nature's gentleman, and I can assure the House that he has no desire, wherever you find him, to hinder the development of the port or to hinder the quick transit of the goods of which he has charge. Sometimes he is hindered, and he does not forget to talk, in his "docksology, "of what he thinks of the people who have hindered the job. However, Mr. Speaker, I have uttered my protest. The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. Well, I do not know what that altogether means, but I suppose it is to indicate that I am wrong. Possibly I am, but I am wrong because you and your race mean us wrong, and if we had been fully informed perhaps we would not have had the necessity to protest against the position as it is to-day. However, Mr. Speaker, that is our position as the Labour party, and we want to be satisfied that there is no weakening of the position, that there is no getting away from the
principle or the scheme which I have tried to help the Government through in the Committee stage.

Sir E. GEDDES: I think that owing to the short time that has elapsed since this Amendment has been put down, it may assist my hon. Friends opposite if I were to say a little about the effect of this Amendment on the docks. If this Amendment had carried with it an alteration in the position of the docks it would have prevented what I have said over and over again— certainly in Committee, and I think in this House— the co-ordination under the authority of the Minister with due regard to the advice he receives, which, as far as the Government is concerned, one would welcome. The Government would never have accepted it. If my hon. Friend will look at the new Clause on which the Amendment has been moved, he will see that if "the Minister shall consider that it is desirable in the national interest that the transport facilities and accommodation at the harbour or at any dock or pier of the owners should be improved or extended, or that the methods of working should be altered, the Minister may by Order … require the owners to execute or do within a reasonable time such improvement …," etc.
There is ample power there to do exactly what is provided for every other undertaking, to give an order to improve the methods of working, which would include co-ordination all over, and to alter or extend the accommodation. What this Amendment of the Clause that is now proposed does which was not done before by the Bill is this, it makes it impossible for the Minister when coming to this House— it makes it impossible for him to displace the dock boards. All my Friends on the Committee will recollect that the Government stated then— I think I said it myself or my hon. Friend did so— that we thought it would be a calamity if those boards were displaced. All the Amendment does is to make it impossible to turn out the dock boards and bring the management to London. That was never intended, and we have said so. I think that met with general approval from all parts of the Committee. The other thing it does is this— it gives' the dock boards the right, if it thinks that the orders of the Minister, the order which he is empowered to give by this very Clause, is seriously injurious to the undertaking— that is to say, if it was something really big that was going to hurt the trade of
the port— it gives them the right to go to the Lord Chief Justice or to the President of the Quarter Sessions, as the case maybe, and put up a case to him and say, "This is so serious an order that we fear our undertaking or port is going to be ruined. Will you look at it and say if you agree with us. "It is true, as one of the papers with the largest circulation said this morning, "Docks have been excluded from Clause 3. They cannot now be taken possession of without consent." But, as we have explained, the words "possession of" are merely repeated from previous Acts and Orders, and it puts a mark or a rubber stamp on the particular undertaking and by that fact enables the Minister to do certain things which this fully empowers him to do. But docks are not left completely outside the scope, or I would not be standing here arguing in favour of the Amendment. They can receive orders in everything and will have to carry out the orders in everything unless they can show that it really is seriously injurious to the undertaking or trade of a port. It relieves the legitimate anxiety of those local bodies that are going to be taken over and some official put in charge. That was never the intention, and I think my hon. Friends are not fair if they say they have been betrayed. They did not have the opportunity of carefully studying the Amendment. There has really been no change on the Government's part. We have put into the Bill what we said over and over again in Committee we intended.

Mr. G. THORNE: I am one of those who were not members of the Committee, but we are able to consider the matter in. the light of the Bill presented to the House and of the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman and other members of the Government on the Second Reading. I venture at this stage, therefore, to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this quotation I am going to make from his speech on the Second Reading. It seems to be inconsistent with the position he is now taking up:
But of this I am perfectly clear, that for the reasons I have given, if you do not put the docks, not under the railway control— I am not suggesting and I am not urging it— but if you do not put the docks under the Transportation Ministry, you cannot ensure these great economies without which some of the calamities I have endeavoured to forecast are inevitable.
It seems to me there is a great change in the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the Bill. In view of those words regarding the economies he hopes
to effect— that they could only be effected if the docks were placed under the Transportation Ministry.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: Docs the hon. Member understand the Amendment which has just been made to give to the Minister all the powers set out with great-elaboration in Clause 3, Sub-section (I, c)? There are long lists of orders which the directors are forced to obey on the direction of the Minister. If it does, it seems to me a very curious piece of drafting. If it docs not, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten the House, and will explain which of these orders are taken in respect of the docks and which are not.

Captain Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne) tried to make out that the position now taken by the Government is inconsistent with the pledge of the Minister in charge of the Bill on the Second Reading. Anyone who is much interested in transport will realise that of the three great necessary things for transport— ships, docks, and railways— ships, with all their shortcomings, are very much ahead in the matter of transport than either docks or railways, and probably, if one had to say that one was more behind than the others, the answer would have to be that it is the railways. I say that as a railway director who knows something about the subject. I am one of those who believe that there is far greater economy to be made by this Bill in the working of the railways than in any other direction. Whilst the docks are, on the whole, very well managed, there is, in my opinion, very considerable room for improvement. If you handed the docks over to a new Ministry in London, to manage entirely, I feel quite certain that they would be very much worse managed than they are to-day. But I take it that the proposal now before the House is a very satisfactory solution of a very difficult problem. In the management of the docks you want not only the working assistance of merchants, but you also want the assistance of the practical ship owner whose ships use the docks, and it is also desirable, as we have in the Port of London, where I was vice-chairman for some seven years, to have the assistance on the Board of the men working in the docks. It is very fortunate for this House that the dock labourers are so ably represented here. This Bill fairly allows the Port authori-
ties representing those three bodies of persons who know the requirements of the docks the ordinary powers of control, and yet it gives to the Minister the power of saying to the dock authority, "you are not as progressive as you ought to be; you ought to make better facilities for the interchange of traffic between railways and shipping. "This Bill will not affect some docks as it will others. For instance, in the case of the Port of London, only about 10 per cent, of the whole of the cargo coming into the port, or leaving the port, goes either directly to or from the railway, and, therefore, as far as the Port of London is concerned, the Government might, without the loss of any great principle, have omitted it altogether from the Bill. But, as I say, this solution is a fair solution, and I believe that after a term of years it will be found that in practical working it will greatly facilitate the flow of traffic from the producer on the one side to the consumer in foreign countries, and of raw materials and food from foreign countries to the consumer in this country.

Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS: I think I can remove the misunderstanding of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens on the question raised in regard to the Manchester Ship Canal. The Manchester Ship Canal is a port and harbour, the third in the Kingdom. It is also a statutory railway company. Hence the necessity for its being named in this Clause In the same way, I believe, the Port of London Authority— the first port in the country— is also a railway authority, and there should be, therefore, words to exclude it from the provisions of the Amendment.

Mr. J. JOHNSTONE: I took an active part in the work of the Committee upstairs and I am bound to say that if the Government had met the Committee in the same spirit as they have met us in the House to-day by this proposed Amendment, the progress of the Bill would have been greatly facilitated in Committee. I do not minimise the change which has been made. It is fundamental. It leaves out harbours, docks, and piers, including the Manchester Ship Canal, for the reason the hon. Member has given. I sympathise with the Labour party, because they have stedfastly supported the Government, but they must not be under the impression that everyone who opposes this proposal
is animated by selfish interests. I have no interest in any undertaking covered by this Bill. I have not a penny invested in. any railway or dock in this country, and yet I steadily opposed the Government in their proposal, because I felt satisfied that they were going the wrong way about. The fundamental change made by this new Clause is this— that, instead of the Government taking possession of and administering the undertakings, they are leaving the undertakings under the present management. I always had the impression that the main object of the Government in taking possession of the harbours was to control and administer them; but the change in this Bill is that the Government is going to keep them under a certain amount of supervision, and to leave the authorities to control and administer them as at present. These authorities will have certain orders given to them with a view to improving the position, and that may be an admirable situation for the Government to adopt. I heartily welcome the change made. I think the proper thing is for the Minister controlling this— Department and surveying the whole field to see where improvements can be carried out— and there is room for great improvement — and to point out to the undertakings the improvements that are required, put-ting the onus on them to make those improvements. That is an entirely different thing from taking possession of the undertakings or controlling their officers or their services. I welcome the change, and at the same time I sympathise with the Labour party, who were looking forward to administrative possession of these undertakings. I believe the change will go a long way to meet their reasonable objections. The proposal that these authorities shall administer their undertakings subject to a certain amount of supervision by the head of the Transport Authority is, of course, entirely different from a proposal to take complete possession of them.

Mr. TILLETT: Before the War, England possessed 66 per cent. of the world's shipping. To-day if I say we possess 40 per cent. I shall be making a generous estimate. America has taken up such a position as to constitute a menace to us in this matter. I am not unfriendly to America. I have no wish to take advantage in a patriotic sense of the better business qualities of the Americans. But our dock property and our shipping pro-
perty have been minimised during the War. We paid a greater penalty in lives and in money than any other country. In practical commerce Germany has not lost a sewing machine. We have left her with all her capacities of recuperation, and she will again be a great shipping competitor. She must be that. Her still, patient manner and effort will constitute her a great menace to this country. It is an extraordinary thing for me to say as a revolutionary Socialist, but the War has saved this Empire. If Peace had continued for another ten years German shipping would have wiped us off the face of the earth. I do not apologise for that statement, but if we are to maintain the insular power we possess— a great little Island— at least we must look after our shipping.
How are we going to do it? The ship owners would sell their mothers, let alone their ships, for their own interests. They have been the greatest profiteers in this War. They have been the greatest menace to our Navy and to our Army, and yet, forsooth, they will say to the right hon. Gentleman afterwards, "You dare not move in this or that direction "We forget that German shipping was built up by State aid, and the shipping fraternity also forgets that, so far as State aid is concerned, they were the greatest plunderers during this War. They were the first to go to the State. They were the first to whine for the protection of the State. They were the first to ask for the protection of our Navy. And the rich ship owners do not send their sons in their ships. I want us at least to realise this position, that to allow an exclusive financial concern sordidly tot pursue its sordid avocations at the expense of the people is a wrong done to the people. When competition comes, as it must come from Japan, from Germany, and from America, the ship owners and dock owners will come to the State to demand their security and their help, and we shall see the head of the Government representing this particular institution erected as a golden calf— I should not like to call him a calf, but we shall see him erected as a person of great importance and they will come to him for support in peace as they did in war. The docks of this country have not been developed by mere shipping enterprise; it has depended on municipal enterprise. The Port of London has demanded the State's interference
and has commanded the State's finances to advance its interests. I do not want us to allow the Government to escape its responsibilities. I do not trust either dock companies or shipowners. I have had to fight them for thirty-five years. I have never known a meaner bargainer than a shipowner; I have never known a more hard-hearted person than a dock director, and I have never met a more impossible person than either of them. The shipowners and dock owners will come to the country first for assistance. They will have to come to them. With all the money they made out of the War, they will come to them with all the greater dividends they pay they will have to come to them. With all the greater value of their shares they will have to come to them. They have only acquired this fictitious value by the incidental factors of the War.
I want us to come down to common sense. I want our country— the greatest mercantile marine country of the world— I want our island— the smallest island in the world that has lived On her commerce— to maintain, not a fictitious value, but an actual, commercial, material value. I have sometimes beaten the powers that be; many times they have beaten me. But I want at least that our country shall be top dog; that it shall at least be equal to any other commercial concern; and if the Government maintains its present attitude upon it is the responsibility, and if the shipowners — who are the greatest and wealthiest factor in the House of Commons— force the issue, upon them will be the very grave responsibility, and upon the dock companies, which are more or less the same. You could not scratch a shipowner without finding a dock director; you could not scratch a dock director without finding a merchant; you could not scratch a merchant without finding some manufacturer who will be a merchant, dock director, and shipowner combined. This War has left us in the lee of transport, and unless the shipowners recognise the commercial value of shipping and docking, and transport, and inland transport, and road transport, unless they give the Government the right to command these powers, they have no right to ask the Government to undertake the responsibility to compete with either Germany or America, and Germany has increased her command of the sea, her command of commerce, her command of shipping, and America
has completed and increased her powers to 2,800 percent, during the War. I am very friendly to America, but I love my country a sight better than that, and I want at least that we shall protect the Government and the Government shall protect us in the fight against what I call, from the capitalistic standpoint, a suicidal policy. The capitalists, and those representing capitalists, are grasping at the shadow and losing the substance by commandeering the Government to support what I consider is a short-sighted policy.

Mr. NEAL: I rise to speak upon the Amendment itself. It was my lot to take part in the deliberations of the Committee, and if some of my hon. Friends above the Gangway who were members of the Committee have not been able quite fully to understand the precise position of the Amendment, there must be a good many hon. Members who were not on the Committee in a similar plight. Among them I notice the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil). I congratulate the Government upon having arrived at their decision without having sacrificed any question of principle. In order to understand the matter fully one has to go back to the Statute of 1871, the Regulation of the Forces Act, which was brought into operation during the War, and under which the Government took control, under the name of possession, of the railways of the country. In so far as there were attached to the railways docks, harbours, and piers as part of their undertaking, they also took possession of those. Clause 3 of the Bill confirms them in that possession for two years, and as it stood when it left the Grand Committee it gave them powers for a like period of two years to take possession of docks, harbours, and piers which were not integral parts of railway undertakings, and if they took possession under those powers automatically, there attached to them all the powers of Sub-section (3) of the Clause, which put upon the directors and every person concerned the obligation to be obedient to certain specific directions given by the Ministry. In the Committee, representatives of the ports and harbours, not unnaturally, were nervous about the position, not so much of the particular undertaking as of the effect upon the locality in which the undertaking was situated, and in particular upon the persons who were employed there. and any interference with those docks and har-
bours might have had disastrous effects upon the locality. Under these circumstances, the change which was brought about by this series of Amendments, as I understand it, was that the Minister no longer asked for powers to take possession on the authority of the Statute of 1871. He gives that up, but in exchange-he takes powers to make Orders which may be as large in their effect as many of the powers given to him under the Statute of 1871. But he concedes to the authorities concerned a very limited method of appeal.

Lord R. CECIL: I am extremely obliged for the information which I have so far failed to get from the Government. Do I understand the hon. Member to say that, as he reads the Clause, the Government gets all the powers it would get under paragraph 3 of Sub-section (1) of the Clause?

Mr. NEAL: I certainly so read the Clause, though I, in common with other Members, have had no opportunity of seeing it until after Question Time. But a. concession is given to these authorities, not necessarily profit-making authorities by any means—many of them publics. authorities. For instance, the Port of London Authority and the Glasgow Harbour Board and the rest, are given a limited right of appeal. First they have to satisfy one of the chief judicial officers of one of the three Kingdoms that they put forward a primâ facie case of serious interference with their wellbeing, and if they succeed in establishing that to the satisfaction of the learned judge, they have a right of arbitration. These powers and clauses are not nationalisation. Therefore I join issue with the hon. Member for Maiden and the hon. Member opposite. Nationalisation is not in Clause 3. Clause 3 gives to the Ministry a period of two years in which to make certain necessary investigations and explorations in order that the Government may at the end of that time advise the House as to what is to be the permanent policy in regard to transport.

Lord H. CECIL: We are grateful to the hon. Member (Mr. Neal) for the exceedingly lucid speech in which he has explained the question at issue. The Government, of course, are familiar with the discussions in Committee, and do not realise that those of us who have not had the same opportunity of knowing what
transpired in Committee require explanation. The hon. Member said, and I want to find out whether his account is correct, that under the new Clause the Government cannot take possession of these docks and harbours except where they are part of a railway undertaking, yet they can give directions under the provisions of Section 3, Sub-section (1), Sub-clause (c). I want to know how the matter stands. It does not seem to me that that is the meaning of the words of the new typewritten Clause which provides that
If at any time during the two years after the passing of this Act the Minister shall consider that it is desirable in the national interest that the transport facilities and accommodation at the harbour, or at any dock or pier of the owners should be improved or extended or that the method of working should be altered, the Minister may by Order, for the purposes aforesaid, require the owners to execute or do, within a reasonable time, such improvement or extension or alteration in the method of working as the Order may prescribe.
That does not on the face of it seem to go so far as Sub-clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 which deals with a number of powers, such as rates, salaries, the working or discontinuance of the working of the undertaking, etc. I should be much obliged to the Minister-designate if he would tell the House exactly how the matter stands as it is exceedingly difficult for hon. Members to understand precisely the nature of the arrangement now put before the House.

Sir E. GEDDES: It will be convenient if I intervene to tell the House the view of the Government on the point raised by the Noble Lord. The words which he has just read, namely, that "if the Minister considers it desirable in the national interest that the transport facilities and accommodation of the harbour, dock, or pier of the owners should be improved or extended or that the method of working should be altered, he may by Order" do certain things, obviously do not cover the Rates Clause, Paragraph (1), Sub-clause (c) of Clause 3 on page 4 of the Bill. It would not cover paragraph (2) as to salaries, wages, etc., on page 4 of the Bill. As to paragraph (3) relating to the working or discontinuance of the working of the undertakings for any financial reason, I hardly think it would cover that. It would cover it if it was for the improvement of the working of the traffic and not merely if it were shut down for financial reasons. That would remain with the dock company. I am advised that the new Clause includes
all the relevant powers down to paragraph 8, which provides for the purchase and distribution of stores and the securing of the best use of manufacturing facilities, which in the case of a dock would not be a very large thing. The most important item in that respect would be that of a railway. Apart from these particular powers, which could, of course, be exercised by consent, if a dock company wished authority to put up its rates it would naturally come for consent. We do get in these words all the powers that are necessary, and are included in Items 1 to 8, which enable us to improve the traffic working, to get coordination and to get improved control by bringing the two transportation agencies together. As to the rates and the conditions of service they remain exactly as they were, unless there is the consent of the owners.

Sir F. BANBURY: There is nothing in the Bill about nationalisation. There is a general impression abroad that nationalisation is in the Bill. With regard to this particular new Clause, I have only seen it to-day, but I have come to the same conclusion that all it does is to omit paragraphs 1 and 2 of Sub-clause (c) of Subsection (1). These are the only two things, and when hon. Members suggest that the Government have made such a great concession I do not think it is any concession at all. I do not think the Labour party need be anxious except on one point. The only thing which the hon. Member for Twickenham has got is that the Government shall have nothing to say as to rates, fares, tolls, dues and charges, but as the right hon. Gentleman has just said, of course the dock companies can come to the Government for consent, and if the Government think it is necessary they can give them consent to vary their rates, fares, tolls, dues and charges. Then there is the other matter as to salaries, wages, remuneration, conditions of employment of persons employed, and so on. Those are the two things which the Government have abandoned, and those are the only things they have abandoned. Of course, there is the appeal to the Lord Chief Justice. It is quite impossible to say whether the Lord Chief Justice will consider whether the proposals of the Government are reasonable or not. Practically all that has been done is that the Government have conceded an appeal to the Lord Chief Justice and to some other legal authority in Scotland—

Lord H. CECIL: Only in the case of serious injury.

Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, and they have cut out these two paragraphs 1 and 2 of Sub-clause (c) referring to rates, tolls, etc., and to salaries, wages, remuneration, and conditions of employment. I started by saying that the idea that this Bill enacts nationalisation is a mistake. It did enact nationalisation when the old Clause 4 was in the Bill. The old Clause 4 enacted nationalisation, but that was taken out in Committee. Therefore, the Bill as it left the Committee did not enact nationalisation. It enabled the Ministry to give certain directions and orders, and that is what this Clause does, with the exception of an appeal on certain points. I do not think, except on the question of wages and conditions of employment, the Labour party need be very anxious.

Sir W. PEARCE: I think this Clause does something more than my right hon. Friend thinks it does. It has rescued the House and the Committee from a very unfortunate position. The danger has been, and it has been a matter of considerable anxiety to those of us who sat on the Standing Committee, that there has been a possibility of conflict constantly arising between the docks and port authorities and the Minister-designate. I believe this Clause has removed a great deal of possible interference and almost entirely the danger of disagreement between the dock authorities and the Ministry. The dock authorities disliked that idea. Those of us in London who were concerned, not so much with the port authorities but with the interests of our constituents, were afraid that a situation might arise in which probably through a mistake of intention on the part of the Port of London Authority there would have been such a quarrel between the port authority and the Ministry that the Ministry might have taken possession of the docks. I think the new Clause satisfies the Ministry and also the port authorities. It enables the Minister to get the powers necessary and the accommodation necessary in order to make his transportation complete, and the dock authorities are relieved of their fear and are assured, in print, that there is to be no unreasonable requirement made upon them and they have a further security that if they think any requirements are unreasonable they will have the right of appeal. That has made a great difference in the feeling of the port authorities
towards this Bill. It will help the Ministry to get the system of transportation which is required, and it has helped the House. I believe this Clause will enable us to solve a situation of extreme difficulty.

Captain HAMILTON BENN: A question has been raised as to the position of the Port of London Authority as to whether it is a statutory railway authority and therefore excluded from the operations of this Clause. I hope that the Minister-designate will give an assurance on that point or that he will insert words to make it clear.

Sir E. GEDDES: The point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend was before us this morning and I am advised that the Port of London Authority is not a statutory railway company. They have certain limited powers as a statutory railway company, but the intention is that they shall be excluded exactly as the Manchester Ship Canal is excluded.

6.0 P.M.

Sir W. RAEBURN: As one who was. concerned in this matter, I would like to say a word or two. Upstairs we fought all the way through for an appeal from any order of the Minister which in the opinion of the authorities might be prejudicial or injurious to the undertaking. We were denied that, though we put up a very good fight and had a very good vote. We have persevered, and on the Report stage we get that appeal. I do not understand why so much has been made about this negotiation. All that has really happened is that the Government, after a struggle, have given us this appeal. All along the Government position has been that they were not going to be hindered at every turn by appeals. We quite admit that, but we say that it is not on trifling matters that we want to have an appeal, but when serious things are done, such as the diversion of trade from one port to another, or inequality of dues between one port and another, or preference being given to one port as against another. We want to protect ourselves against that, and that was a reasonable thing to ask. My expectation this afternoon was that my own side would rather object to our having got so little. I never expected that the opposition was going to come from the other side. The right hon. Member for the City of London and a good many of our people think that we have got nothing.

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not say that. I said "very little."

Sir W. RAEBURN: At any rate, it is a further outlet from the very difficult position in which we were, and the great dock authorities are content with the concession that has been made. We have to prove a very serious state of affairs before we can get an arbitrator who will hear our case. We have to appeal in the first instance to the highest legal authority in England or Scotland, and we have to convince that authority that our case is not merely a trumped up case. That is a serious barrier to be placed in our way. We have agreed, because we trust to the justice and knowledge of that legal authority. Then comes the question—What are you to get the appeal upon? All through the Committee we said that it is not to be on a small matter. Who is to define whether it is a small or a large matter. We have agreed to this concession, that it is to be on a very serious matter. If a Minister came and said: "I want you to alter that bridge, or to put rails along the front of the dock, which I think would help traffic," no one could ever conceive that there would be serious objection. After thirty-two years experience of dock authorities, I do not know of any dock authority in this country that would not help a Minister in matters of that kind. But if he is going to do something serious, which is going to injure the port, such as the diversion of traffic, or keeping on unnecessary undertakings, or parts of docks or sheds which we think unnecessary then we will say to this legal authority: "We think that that is unreasonable and injurious to the port." The dock authorities who have come to their present state of efficiency, which is acknowledged even by the Ministers in charge of this Bill, have gone a long way to meet the Government. There has been nothing underhand in their action. There is no ulterior motive. I do not know what my hon. Friend on the other side all through the Committee stage meant by the position which he took up. I am afraid that that is the great hindrance to any proper co-operation—that the other side always distrusts.
I am not going to follow the speaker who made a violent attack on the shipowners. I do not think that this Bill is the occasion; if it were, I would have taken the opportunity to defend my trade
in a proper way. But I am not going to divert my mind from the subject under discussion to any further attack. The great aim of every properly managed dock authority is to get the traffic quickly handled and get the ships quickly turned round. I happen to be one of the much maligned shipowners, and therefore, when sitting on a Dock Board, one of its greatest critics. One of the things that have combined to produce the congestion that has been referred to is due to the railway rates on goods never having been raised since the War began. In some cases they were even reduced, while the coasting trade could not live without putting its rates up. The consequence is that the great coastal trade of our country, which carried. hundreds of thousands of tons around our coasts, is killed off at the present moment, and of course once a port begins to be congested, goods are put into a shed and axe put up in double stories, and then when a cart: comes to get its load, you cannot go to the bottom because of the enormous amount of labour required to take off the super-encumbrance. The congestion then is not directly owing to any fault of the dock authorities, but to the railway companies, which are carrying hundreds of thousands of tons, far below cost, which the coastal lines are quite prepared to carry on a commercial basis. To get back to the point. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but so much latitude has been taken that I thought that I might take some. But in conclusion, I have only to say that I believe that, owing to the united efforts of the Government and the dock undertakings, a workable arrangement has been come to, and I believe that a great many who took the view that the docks ought to be excluded altogether will be content with this as a compromise. We live in an age of compromise, and when all is said and done the Minister has got a great deal of power which I do not believe any Minister would ever have got except at the present time. I hope that the compromise will prove to be satisfactory.

Question put,
That those words be there inserted.

Sir R. COOPER: (seated and covered) On a point of Order. Is it competent for an hon. Member to be smoking in the House of Commons, as the hon. Member at the end of the Opposition Bench is doing?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is competent for him to smoke, but it would be distinctly disorderly.

The House divided: Ayes, 325; Noes, 62.

Division No. 50.]
AYES.
[6.10 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Crott, Brig.-Gen. Henry page
Jephcott, A. R.


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton)
Johnson, L. S.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin
Davidson, major-Gen. Sir John H.
Johnstone, J.


Armitage, Robert
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Astor, major Hon. Waldorf
Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Jones, G. W H. (Stoke Newington)


Atkey, A. R.
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)


Austin, Sir H.
Denison-Pender, John C.
Joynson-Hicks, William


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
Kellaway, Frederick George


Baird, John Lawrence
Dockrell, Sir M.
Kidd, James


Baldwin, Stanley
Doyle, N. Grattan
Kiley, James Daniel


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Duncannon, Viscount
King, Com, Douglas


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Knight, Capt. E. A.


Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-
Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)
Knights, Capt. H.


Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. N. (Gorbals)
Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Lane-Fox, Major G. R.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Larmor, Sir J.


Barnett, Captain Richard W.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)


Barnston, Major Harry
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)


Barrand, A. R.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Lewis, Rt Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Lorden, John William


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Foreman, H.
Lort-Williams, J.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lowe, Sir F. w.


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Forster, Rt. Hon. H. W.
Lowther, Major c. (Cumberland, N.)


Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)
Foxcroft, Captain C.
M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)


Bennett, T. J.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)


Bigland, Alfred
Gange, E. S.
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)


Birchall, Major J. D.
Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
Macleod, John Mackintosh


Bird, Alfred
Gardiner, J. (Perth)
M'Micking, Major Gilbert


Blades, Sir George R
Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor)
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)


Blair, Major Reginald
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)
Macquisten, F. A.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mallalieu, Frederick William


Blane, T. A.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Marriott, John Arthur R.


Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Martin, A. E.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Gould, J. C.
Mason, Robert


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.
Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.


Bowles, Col. H. F.
Grant, James Augustus
Mitchell, William Lane-


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Greame, Major p. Lloyd-
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Boyd Carpenter, Major A.
Green, A. (Derby)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. T.


Brackenbury, Col. H. L.
Greer, Harry
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Brassey, H. L. C.
Greig, Colonel James William
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)


Breese, Major C. E.
Gretton, Colonel John
Mosley, Oswald


Brittain, Sir Harry E.
Griggs, Sir Peter
Mount, William Arthur


Britton, G. B.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Murchison, C. K.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hacking, Captain D. H.
Murray, Lt. Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Hailwood, A.
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness-shire)
Murray, John (Leeds, W.)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)
Murray, William (Dumfries)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)
Haslam, Lewis
Nall, Major Joseph


Campbell, J. G. D.
Henderson, Major V. L.
Neal, Arthur


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Hennessy, Major G.
Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)


Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)


Carr, W. T.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Nicholson, w. (Petersfield)


Casey, T. W.
Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.
Nield, Sir Herbert


Cayzer, Major H. R.
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Hinds, John
O'Connor, T. P.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir- Samuel J. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hope, Harry (Stirling)
Parker, James


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Parry, Major Thomas Henry


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Hope, John Deans (Berwick)
Pearce, Sir William


Clyde, James Avon
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Houston, Robert Paterson
Perkins, Walter Frank


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Howard, Major S. G.
Perring, William George


Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.
Hudson, R. M.
Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)


Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff)
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A, G.
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Courthope, Major George Loyd
Hurd, P. A.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Hurst, Major G. B.
Pratt, John William


Prescott, Major W. H.
Seddon, J. A.
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Purchase, H, G.
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Rae, H. Norman
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Raeburn, Sir William
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W)
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Raffan, peter Wilson
Simm, Colonel M. T.
Wardie, George J.


Ramsden, G. T.
Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Waring, Major Walter


Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Raper, A. Baldwin
Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville
Weston, Col. John W.


Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Starkey, Capt. John Ralph
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)
Steel, Major S. Strang
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Remer, J. B.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson
Stevens, Marshall
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Renwick, G.
Stewart, Gershom
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Richardson, Alex, (Gravesend)
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Sugden, W. H.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)
Sutherland, Sir William
Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud


Rodger, A. K.
Sykes, Col Sir A. J. (Knutsford)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Rothchild, Lionel de
Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)


Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)


Rowlands, James
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Royden, Sir Thomas
Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund
Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)


Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)
Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Yate, Col. Charles Edward


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)
Tickler, Thomas George
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)
Tryon, Major George Clement
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.
Vickers, D.
Younger, Sir George


Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Waddington, R.



Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)
Walker, Col. William Hall
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E


Seager, Sir William
Wallace, J. 
Talbot and Captain F. Guest.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Hartshorn, V.
Sitch, C. H.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayday, A.
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)


Arnold, Sydney
Hayward, Major Evan
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Bowerman, Right Hon. C. W.
Hogge, J. M.
Spencer, George A.


Bramsdon, Sir T.
Holmes, J. S.
Spoor, B. G.


Briant, F.
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Sturrock, J. Leng-


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Swan, J. E. C.


Cape, Tom
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lunn, William 
Tootill, Robert


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)


Dawes, J. A.
Morgan, Major D. Watts 
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Wignall, James


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Newbould, A. E.
Williams, J (Gower, Glam.)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
O'Grady, James
Williams, Col P. (Middlesbrough)


Galbraith, Samuel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Glanville, Harold James
Rendall, Athelstan
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)


Grundy, T. W.
Royce, William Stapleton



Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lt.-Col


Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)
W. Thorne and Mr T. Griffiths.

Sir E. GEDDES: I beg to move to leave out the words,
Provided that, if the owners consider that any such requirements of the Minister are unreasonable, they may appeal to an arbitrator to be appointed in the case of an undertaking situate in England or Wales by the Lord Chief Justice of England, in the case of any undertaking situate in Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, and in the case of an undertaking situate in Ireland by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and the arbitrator may annul the order or allow the same with or without modification,
and to insert instead thereof the words,
and may for that purpose confer on the owners any such powers of acquiring land or easements or constructing works as are mentioned in paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of that Section.
Provided that if the owners of such undertaking consider that any such requirements of the Minister are likely to be seriously injurious
to the undertaking, or to the trade of the port, they may appeal, in the case of an undertaking situate in England or Wales to the Lord Chief Justice of England, or in the case of an under taking situate in Scotland, to the Lord President of the Court of Session, or, in the case of an undertaking situate in Ireland, to the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and if it appears to such Lord Chief Justice or Lord President that a promâ facie case made out that the requirements of the Minister would be so injurious as aforesaid he shall forth with appoint an arbitrator to hold an immediate inquiry, and if the arbitrator reports that the carrying out of the requirements of the Minister will be so injurious as aforesaid the Minister shall revoke his requirements, without prejudice to the power of the Minister to issue a new order.

Question,
That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause,

put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Sir F. FLANNERY: I have a small Amendment, but it is of considerable importance in its results. I beg to move, after the word "may" ["Trade of the port, they may appeal"], to insert the words,
within seven days of receiving notice of such requirement from the Minister.
The object of this Amendment is to limit the length of time that the owners of docks and harbours will have in which they might lodge their appeal. The whole purpose of this Bill is limited to two years. One of the great points which the Committee had in their mind upstairs was to avoid any obstruction which could absorb any large portion of two years, and so prevent the working experimentally and otherwise of the Bill. If these words are not inserted in the Clause, an indefinite time might elapse before the harbour authority had made up its mind whether or not it should appeal, and then having made up its mind to appeal, and having lodged notice with all the necessary details entailed, a very considerable time might elapse so as to paralyse and stagnate the action which the Minister had in his mind in making the Order in the first instance. I think that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), who is very much associated with me in endeavouring to make the most perfect provision in this Clause, is likely to agree with the purpose of the Amendment. I beg leave to move that those words be there inserted.

Major BAIRD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Do I understand that the Under-Secretary to the Minister-designate seconds the Amendment? This is an agreed Clause between the Minister and myself and other Members, and here is an Amendment seconded by the Under-Secretary to the Minister when no other Member rose in his place to do so. Of course, the hon. Member has a right, as has every Member, to second any Amendment he likes, but I am surprised that the Under-Secretary should think it right to do so. I hope my hon. Friend who moved will not press this Amendment. He did mention it to me, but if you make the dock authorities accept or reject within seven days, the result would be that the common form of the dock trustees and authorities who cannot get together in that time to order an appeal in every case. The
much better plan is that of the Clause, trust the Minister and the dock and harbour authorities to come to terms. We do not want arbitration and legal proceedings, and the best way to avoid that is for the right hon. Gentleman to consult with the port and dock authorities and not put them to the necessity of accepting his suggestion in seven days. The Under-Secretary who has seconded was present at the consultation when the works of the Clause were agreed upon.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I would remind my hon. Friend that the hon. Member who seconded is not a member of the Government.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: He is an Under-Secretary.

Mr. SHORTT: He is not a member of the Government. It did seem, I confess, to me that this is a matter that ought to be discussed and if seven days is insufficient we can amend it to a month. It is a matter which we overlooked and does not. go to the root or affect the principle of the Bill.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest a month?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think we should be obliged to the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) for the remarks he has just made in which he has given away the whole show. Apparently Amendments approved by that hon. Gentleman and his friends are to be let through. I would like to take the opportunity of protesting, and to use this Amendment as the peg to hang that protest against most unconstitutional proceedings. I am not very adept in the constitution, but I do know this, that you have certain members who make arrangements and agreements that certain things are to be done, and we have a House which is more or less pledged to support the Government right or wrong, thick or thin. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I fought at the General Election, and I know something about it. I know the speeches that were made on that occasion. I am in support of the Amendment, but I think it is a deliberate affront, using the words without any disrespect, to our intelligence that these arrangements should be made in this way. Here is a Bill on which a tremendous lot of work was done in Committee, and now certain conversations.
take place not on the floor of the House, and we do not know what arguments were used. As I have said, I think the Amendment is most reasonable. Time is a most important factor in connection with the Bill, and I think seven days is sufficiently long for business men for any protest to be made, and if my hon. Friend divides I shall certainly support him.

Sir F. BANBURY: By leave of the House, I would desire to insert "thirty" instead of "seven."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir F. FLANNERY: I beg to move, after the word "may" ["may appeal"], to insert the words
within thirty days of receiving notice of such requirements from the Minister.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. SPEAKER: The "Ayes" have it.

HON. MEMBERS: The "Noes" have it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I ask hon. Members who challenge my statement to rise in their places.

A number of hon. Members having risen,

Mr. SPEAKER: The "Ayes" have it.

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I desire to oppose this Clause because it cuts down the power of the Minister of

Ways and Communications. I think it is necessary to give special powers in order to get the transport question fully dealt with. This proposal must limit the powers of the Minister as otherwise it would not be acceptable to the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) and those associated with him. I consider it necessary that the Minister should have strong powers, particularly with regard to harbours and docks. I am speaking for the fourth port in the United Kingdom and which is much neglected. Those very important harbours and docks are now used to the full at present, while other ports are congested. Therefore it is most necessary that there should be some central authority to arrange these matters, and therefore I object to any weakening of the powers of the Minister-designate with regard to ports and docks, although that may be an obstacle in the way of eventual nationalisation which I suppose is the real object of some hon. Gentlemen. I think the Minister should have power to act at once and quickly, and on a large scale. I believe he is capable of doing so. Although I am opposed to this Government, I saw some of the right hon. Gentleman's work at the Board of Admiralty when he was First Lord, and I believe he can be trusted to do this work efficiently. I consider this Amendment most mischievous and one which should be opposed.

An HON. MEMBER: I think it is as well that hon. Members should understand that the docks and port of Hull are railway-owned.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: There is no good of taking one dock under the Ministry and not another.

Question put,
That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes, 336; Noes, 55.

Division No. 51.]
AYES.
[6.41 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Bird, Alfred


Adkins, Sir W, Ryland D.
Barnett, Captain Richard W.
Blair, Major Reginald


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Barnston, Major Harry
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Barrand, A. R.
Blane, T. A.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col, Martin
Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.


Armitage, Robert
Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Borwick, Major G. O.


Astbury, Lt.-Com. F. W.
Beck, Arthur Cecil
Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-


Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf
Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Bowles, Col. H. F.


Atkey, A. R.
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.


Austin, Sir H.
Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Baird, John Lawrence
Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)
Brackenbury, Col. H. L.


Baldwin, Stanley
Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)
Brassey, H. L. C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bentinck, Lt.-John. Lord H. Cavendish-
Breese, Major C. E.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.
Bethell, Sir John Henry
Brittain, Sir Harry E.


Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-
Bigland, Alfred
Broad, Thomas Tucker


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. N. (Gorbals)
Birchall, Major J. D.
Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Henderson, Major V. L.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Bull Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hennessy, Major G.
Palmer, Major G.M. (Jarrow)


Buruon, Colonel Rowland
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)
Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Parker, James


Campbell, J. G. D.
Hickman, Brig,-Gen. Thomas E.
Pearce, Sir William


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Hilder, Lieutenant-Colonel F.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Carr W. T.
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Hinds, John
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Casey, T. W.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Percy, Charles


Cayzer, Major H, R.
Hope, Harry (Stirling)
Perkins, Waiter Frank


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Perring, William George


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Ft. (Hitchin)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Philipps, Gen. Sir l. (Southampton)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Houston, Robert Paterson
Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles


Coats, Sir Stuart
Howard, Major S. G.
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Hudson, R. M.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Pratt, John William


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis
Prescott, Major W. H.


Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Purchase, H. G.


Coote, W. (Tyrone, S.)
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Rae, H. Norman


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Hurst, Major G. B.
Raeburn, Sir William


Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Courthope, Major George Loyd
Jephcott, A. R.
Ramsden, G. T.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Johnson, L. S.
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Johnstone, J.
Raper, A. Baldwin


Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Crocks, Rt. Hon. William
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Reid, D. D.


Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton)
Joynson-Hicks, William
Remer, J. B.


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Kellaway, Frederick George
Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Renwick, G.


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
King, Com. Douglas
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Denison-Pender, John C.
Knight, Capt. E. A.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
Knights, Capt. H.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Dixon, Captain H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)


Dockrell, Sir M.
Lane-Fox, Major G. R-
Rodger, A. K.


Donald, T.
Larmor, Sir J.
Rothchild, Lionel de


Doyle, N. Grattan
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.


Duncannon, Viscount
Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Rowlands, James


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Lewis, Rt. Hen. J. H. (Univ. Wales)
Royden, Sir Thomas


Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund


Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)


Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Lonsdale, James R
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Lorden, John William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander 
Lort-Williams, J.
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lowe, Sir F. W. 
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


fell, Sir Arthur
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
M 'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Seager, Sir William


Foreman, H
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Seddon, J. A.


Forestier-Walker, L.
McNeill. Ronald (Canterbury) 
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Forster, Rt. Hon. H. W.
Macquisten, F, A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Foxcroft, Captain C.
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Marriott, John Arthur R.
Simm, Colonel M. T.


Gange, E. S.
Martin, A. E. 
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
Mason, Robert
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander


Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Middlebrook, Sir William
Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville


Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor) 
Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.
Starkey, Capt. John Ralph


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)
Mitchell, William Lane-
Steel, Major S. Strang


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. T.
Stevens, Marshall


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John 
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Stewart, Gershom


Gould, J. C.
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.
Mosley, Oswald 
Sugden, W. H.


Gray, Major E.
Mount, William Arthur 
Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.


Greame, Major P. Lloyd-
Murchison, C. K.
Sutherland, Sir William


Green, A. (Derby) 
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)


Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Greer, Harry
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Gregory, Holman
Murray, John (Leeds, W.)
Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)


Greig, Colonel James William
Murray, William (Dumfries) 
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Gretton, Colonel John
Nall, Major Joseph
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Griggs, Sir Peter
Neal, Arthur
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)
Tickler, Thomas George


Hacking, Captain D. H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Hailwood, A.
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Hall, Capt. D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)
Vickers, D.


Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Nield, Sir Herbert
Waddington, R.


Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Walker, Col. William Hall


Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)
O'Connor, T. P.
Wallace, J.


Haslam, Lewis
O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.
Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)




Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)
Wood. Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)


Wardle, George J.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Weigail, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.
Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Weston, Col. John W.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
Yea, Sir Alfred William


Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


White, Col. G.D. (Southport)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)
Younger, Sir George


Whitla, Sir William
Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)



Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Capt.


Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Wilson-Fox. Henry
F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)
Winfrey, Sir Richard



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Hay day, A.
Sitch, C. H.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayward, Major Evan
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)


Arnold, Sydney
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Bramsdon, Sir T.
Holmes, J. s.
Spencer, George A.


Briant, F.
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Spoor, B. G.


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Swan, J. E C.


Cape, Tom
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tootill, Robert


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Waterson, A. E.


Dawes, J. A.
Newbould, A. E.
Wignall, James


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
O'Grady, James
Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Rendall, Atheistan
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Glanville, Harold James
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Young, Robert (Newton, Lanes.)


Grundy, T. W.
Royce, William Stapleton



Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Lt.-Col.


Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)
W. Thorne and Mr- T. Griffiths.


Hartshorn, V.




Question put, and agreed to.

The following new Clause stood on the Paper in the name of Sir F. Banbury:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Orders in Council.)

(1) Before any Order in Council under this Act is made, notice of the proposal to make the Order and of the place where copies of a draft of the Order can be obtained shall be published in the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Gazette as the case may require and in such other manner as the Minister thinks best adapted for ensuring publicity, and the draft of the Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament.

(2) In the case of a draft of an Order in Council proposed to be made under Section two, Sub-section (1), of this Act, the Order shall not be made until both Houses of Parliament by resolution have approved the draft, nor, if any modifications are agreed to by both Houses, otherwise than as so modified, and in the case of a draft of an Order proposed to be made under Section two, Sub-section (2), of this Act if either House, before the expiration of thirty days during which the House is sitting after the draft of the Order has been laid before that House, presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new draft Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: The first part of the right hon. Gentleman's Clause is in order, but the second part ought to come as an Amendment to Clause 2.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Orders in Council.)

Before any Order in Council under this Act is made, notice of the proposal to make the Order and of the place where copies of a draft of the
Order can be obtained shall be published in the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Gazette as the case may require and in such other manner as the Minister thinks best adapted for ensuring publicity, and the draft of the Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament.—[Sir F. Banbury.)

Brought up, and read the first time.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move,
That the Clause be read a second time." 
I propose to move the second part as an Amendment to Clause 2. I think the Government can accept this, because it only lays down that, before an Order in Council is made, notice shall be given in order to secure publicity. The second part of the Clause, which is out of order here, may be more controversial.

Mr. SHORTT: I would ask my right hon. Friend not to press this Clause, unless he puts into it the words, "under Sections 8 and 10 of this Act." My right hon. Friend will recollect that, under Sections 8 an3 10, there is provision for Orders in Council, which deal with much more controversial matters. One is an Order in Council dealing with any fresh enterprise, and Section 10 deals with an, Order in Council which authorises the purchase of privately-owned wagons. In Committee it was decided that in both those cases an Order should lie on the Table of the House, and no purchase be
made until a Resolution had been passed by both Houses. In those cases it is quite right to provide for publicity; otherwise this Amendment of my right hon. Friend would not affect these Sections at all. But, so far as Section 2 is concerned, the matter is quite different. We could not possibly agree to any such provision with regard to Section 2, but if my right hon. Friend will insert the words, so that the Clause will run, "Before any Order in Council under Sections 8 and 10 of this Act," then we will accept it.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will say why he cannot accept the Clause as it is? He has merely stated that Clauses 8 and 10 already have provisions with regard to draft Orders in Council lying on the Table of the House, and he says he does not mind including these particular Clauses in my new Clause, but he does not give any reasons why the other Orders in Council relating to other Clauses in the Bill should not be treated in the same way. Perhaps he will say why, if it is right in the case of two of these Clauses that notice should be given, it is wrong as regards the other Clauses to have notice given.

Mr. SHORTT: The only other Clause in the Bill which provides for Orders in Council is Clause 2. Clause 2 is a very different matter from the Clause which deals with new enterprises, or the Clause which deals with taking away from private owners their privately-owned wagons. Clause 2 merely refers to the transfer of powers which has already been decided by the House of Commons on Second Reading and in Committee. All that the Order in Council does in that case is to decide the date on which the transfer is to take place. You might require it at a time when the House is not sitting. The delay and all that sort of thing might be very detrimental to the work of the Ministry, and it is not a matter which requires the decision of the House in the way the other did. Those are the only Clauses in the Bill which have any Order in Council at all.

7.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that Clause 2 goes considerably beyond what he says. It deals with
any powers of any Government Department with respect to the making, confirming, issuing, granting, or giving (as the case may be) of by-
laws, regulations, orders, licences, approvals, or consents relating to any of the matters hereinbefore mentioned.
All I ask is that before Orders dealing with these very import ant matters arts promulgated, that, at any rate, notice should be given in the proper quarters, where the draft Orders could be seen. I really think this is a most reasonable request, and I hope, after consideration, my right hon. Friend will accede to it.

Mr. SHORTT: May I remind my right hon. Friend that we have already circulated a White Paper which shows exactly what are the powers to be transferred to the Ministry? All that this Order in Council will do is to say that the powers of the Board of Trade will be transferred to the Ministry on a certain date. That is the Order in Council, and why it should be necessary to wait until Parliament is sitting to do that, when Parliament has already decided that the powers are to be transferred, I cannot imagine. It is only a question of the date. The powers arc, in fact, transferred.

Lord H. CECIL: I cannot see that the right hon. Gentleman's argument has any bearing on the question of publication in the "London Gazette." 1 should have thought it would have been on every ground exceedingly convenient that there should be publicity.

Mr. SHORTT: The last words are struck out.

Lord H. CECIL: I am merely pointing out that publicity is an advantage in all these matters, and that it is highly desirable that we should have an authentic record.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope the two right hon. Gentlemen in charge of this Bill will see the force of the argument, from a business point of view, to the whole business community. Whatever may have been decided by this House, the business world at large should know what has been done. I agree that some weight ought to be attached to the statement made by the Home Secretary that it may be necessary to make an Order in Council during our Autumn Vacation, when we are not sitting here, perhaps, for two months, and I think if my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) would leave out the last words, "the draft of the Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament," then everybody will agree to it.

Colonel GRETTON: I think my right hon. Friend who moved this Clause would be well advised to agree to the proposal of the Government, who would accept his Clause if it applied to Clauses 8 and 10 of the Bill. The one serious objection which has been raised to the proposed Clause is that the draft Order should be laid before both Houses of Parliament in cases under Clause 2 of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman cannot abandon these words as suggested, because they are of great importance as regards Clauses 8 and 10. Parliament certainly ought to be informed of the draft Orders made.

Mr. SHORTT: May I point out that Clauses 8 and 10 provide not only for the draft Orders being laid on the Table of the House, but they cannot come into force until the House adopts them.

Colonel GRETTON: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation, but I think he will find that relates to the Orders themselves. This is the draft Order, and it is before the draft Order, which becomes an Order, is made. The two things are rather different. But 1 think my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Ban-bury) will be well advised to accept what the Government offer him, and that his proposal will be a very great advantage to the business community.

Sir R. ADKINS: As my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir D. Maclean) has pointed out, we want as wide publicity as possible in regard to every Order. Would not the case be met if we stated at the end, ''the draft of the Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament if sitting at the time of the draft?" We want as much publicity as possible, and the whole policy of the Government and Parliament ought to be to give as much publicity as possible to what they are doing.

Sir F. BAN BURY: If I were to accept the words "if sitting at the time of the draft," this might happen. The words might be held to apply to Clause 8 and Clause 10, which already have a provision that the draft should be laid before Parliament. I do not want in any way to minimise those Clauses, and therefore I think I had better ask leave to withdraw the Clause in order to move it in an amended form, and to leave out the words, "and the draft of the Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament." I understand the Home Secretary will accept it in that form, or, perhaps it
might be better that the Clause should be read a second time, and that I should then move an Amendment to leave out those words.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the words,
and the draft of the Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament.

Mr. SPEAKER: What will become of the suggestion to insert the words, "under Sections 8 and 10 of this Bill"?

Mr. SHORTT: I do not move that.

Lord H. CECIL: No objection, I imagine, will arise as a matter of Order to the subsequent part of my Friend's Clause being put as an Amendment, with, perhaps, the addition of those words that we are cutting out this Clause if they are necessary on Clause 2. We are not coming to any decision, by cutting out these words, which will stand in the way of dealing with the matter when we come to Clause 2?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that will be open to the House then.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Complaints to Railway and Canal Commission as to Undue Disadvantage.)

"The owners of any harbour, dock, or pier undertaking established by Act of Parliament who shall have reason to believe that the Minister is by any direction given, or anything done, by him under this Act placing their harbour, dock, or pier at an undue disadvantage as compared with any other harbour, dock, or pier may make complaint thereof to the Railway and Canal Com missioners who shall have the like jurisdiction to hear and determine the subject matter of the complaint as they have to hear and determine a complaint of a contravention of Section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, as amended by subsequent Acts, and the Commissioners may accordingly rescind or vary such direction or give such other relief as to them may seem proper."—[Mr. Pennefather.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to move,
That the Clause be read a second time.
I feel in a difficulty with regard to this Clause, because it is very hard to tell yet how the point covered by it is affected by the Amendment which we have passed this afternoon. Unless my Friends whose names are on the Paper in support of it or other hon. Members who are interested desire to make any remarks, I should feel inclined that this point might be raised at
some other stage. I think, however, that some of my hon. Friends do desire to make some remarks, and, therefore, I will just content myself with moving the Clause.

Mr. SPEAKER: I rather think this has been disposed of. The House has decided that in the event of any dock or pier or harbour desiring to take exception to certain acts of the Minister, it shall have a certain time within which to appeal.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of order, Sir, and with very great submission. What we passed this afternoon was a Clause giving the right of appeal in respect to any Order of the Minister referring to a dock or harbour. The present Clause gives the dock or harbour the right to appeal to the Railway and Canal Commissioners in respect to undue disadvantage to them caused by any Order of the Minister.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is so.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: I will content myself by simply moving the new Clause.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to second the Motion. It is quite possible that by an Order given by me Minister to a railway company, which may have to run trains into a dock, that very grave disadvantage may be placed on the dock. This Clause is, in effect, a re-enactment of a Clause in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, Section 30, by which Parliament reserved a very distinct power to any dock or harbour authority or dock company which had reason to believe that any railway company was, by its rates or otherwise, placing their harbour or docks at an undue disadvantage compared with any other docks. Under Clause 3 of the Bill, Subsection (1) (e), we reserve the right to a dock or harbour to appeal to the Railway Commissioners in regard to anything done by a railway company which creates an undue preference in regard to rates. We do not, however, preserve to the dock or harbour authority the right to appeal against undue preference "or otherwise." That is an oversight, I gather, from the Committee upstairs, but it is quite clear that an order of a railway company— which, of course, under the provisions of this Bill, will have been taken possession of, technically, by the Minister, and so will be an Order of the Minister through the railway company—could place another company at a great deal of disadvantage.
This is conceivable, and in 1888 Parliament thought it was conceivable and provided a right for them to appeal. The right which Parliament gave in 1888 for a dock company to appeal to the Railway and Canal Commissioners should not be taken away under this Act, but preserved.

Mr. SHORTT: This Clause as it stands goes a great deal further than anything which is contained in the Act referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. That Act provides for the case of a railway company which has any system connected with two separate and individual docks, and which gives a preference to one of them. Suppose, for instance, that a railway company serving the docks at Hull and Grimsby gave an undue preference to the Hull docks, the Grimsby docks could go before the Railway and Canal Commissioners and get from the railway company the same facilities as are given to Hull. But this is a very different matter, and I must say it is a most ingenious use of a term which I do not think occurs anywhere except in that particular section—namely, "undue disadvantage." That really means undue preference. I do not quite know what "undue disadvantage" means in the proposed Clause, but I think I know what it ends at. The Minister may give directions with regard to railways and docks all over the country, and also roads and canals, and so on. If the Minister gives an order, say in Glasgow or Liverpool, which greatly improves the facilities, improves the railway connections, and perhaps the connections with some canals, those facilities may be of immense value to the trade of the country. But such an improvement in the facilities of the docks of Glasgow and Liverpool might attract trade, say, from Southampton or some other port to Liverpool and Glasgow, to the great advantage of the trading community, but to the injury of some individual dock. Then that dock would be able to come and say that these orders, which are for the good of the whole trading community, are to the disadvantage, say, of Southampton, and put a stop to the whole thing. That sort of thing is far too wide. As I have said, I do not think the term "undue disadvantage" is used anywhere but in that one section. I may be wrong, but at any rate I do not recollect it. It is there used really as meaning undue preference on the same railway system.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think it can refer to undue preference. Preference must be a matter of rates. The Section refers to cases in which a dock is placed at an undue disadvantage, whether by rates or otherwise.

Mr. SHORTT: It is a preference given by one system which serves two docks to one of those docks, and I take it that the second dock must be put upon as good a footing as the first. As this proposed Clause stands it means that, no matter where the Order is given, or whether it is connected or not with the complaining dock, which may be in a totally different part of the country, if the indirect effect is to make a dock less prosperous, or if it would necessitate a change in its trade, or something of that sort; if, in fact, it was something which, -while being of immense benefit to the trade of the country, might cause temporary dislocation and disadvantage to some local dock, that local dock could plead undue disadvantage and put a stop to the whole thing. Therefore, it is quite impossible to accept this Clause. There is no desire to do anything to interfere with any individual undertaking; quite the opposite. But, at the same time, as you must have improvements—and I trust that they will be brought about under the working of the Bill when it becomes an Act—there must be a certain amount of dislocation and temporary disadvantage, and everybody must accept that. At the same time there is every intention to treat everybody with fairness and to do no injury that can possibly be avoided. We cannot, however, accept a provision which, in order to avoid some temporary disadvantage to a local undertaking, may put a stop to a great scheme of national policy which will be of the greatest national benefit.

Sir E. CARSON: I should like to ask whether the provision referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) will be preserved. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary says that the Section of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888, to which reference has been made, applies where a railway serves two docks, and ensures that the railway shall not have the power to create an undue disadvantage against either of them. That is what I understood to be his construction of the Section. But is that right preserved, or has it been taken away now that the railway company is being practically abolished,
and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge is to be the Director of all the railway companies? Will he be bound by that Section in the cases provided for, in that, where a railway serves two docks, and either of them is put at a disadvantage, it will be able to go to the Railway and Canal Commission?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, the provision in that Act is not repealed, and in so far as a railway company does that, it still exists; and the Minister is in fact, acting as a railway company. The railway company would still continue to exist as such.

General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I protest against the example which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took. He suggested that improvements which the Minister might introduce in Liverpool or Glasgow would seriously damage Southampton.

Mr. SHORTT: I said, "or some other port."

Lord H. CECIL: I do not think the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is a good one, because the words "undue disadvantage" would evidently exclude any disadvantage caused in the public interest by a great reform. I cannot conceive that the Railway and Canal Commission would hold that a particular dock suffered "undue disadvantage" because, owing to some considerable improvement, that particular dock lost rather more than others. That would be "due disadvantage." Therefore I suggest that the words "undue disadvantage" do guard against the objection which the Home Secretary makes; but if that were not sufficient it would be open to the Government to define the words in their Bill in any way they think proper, and make it quite clear that "undue disadvantage" means disadvantage which is in the nature of unfair advantage given to one dock over another.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like with the leave of the House, to say one word with regard to the point made by the Home Secretary. I am afraid that he is wrong. Under the provisions of his own Bill, any alteration in rates made by a railway company under the direction of the Minister is deemed to be reasonable, notwithstanding any agreement or statutory provision. If a railway company, under the directions of the Minister, makes a rate, that rate is deemed to be reasonable notwithstanding any statutory
provision, subject only to claims as regards undue preference, but not undue disadvantage. Perhaps if the words ''undue disadvantage" were inserted after the words "undue preference" in Sub-section (1) (e) of Section 3 of the Bill, it would meet the case. A rate ordered by the Minister is deemed to be reasonable and becomes statutory, and I think that could be pleaded, as the Bill at present stands, in reply to any claim by a dock company in respect of "undue disadvantage."

Colonel GREIG: The effort of this Amendment, which has been moved in order to provide an appeal under the Clause which the Government has already accepted in the interests of the dock and harbour companies this afternoon, would be to allow a dock or harbour company, where it is injuriously affected, to make an appeal which would hold up the whole matter. What does this Amendment do? It applies to harbour, dock, and pier undertakings, and a harbour, dock or pier undertaking within the section as it is thus proposed to be amended, could complain to the Railway and Canal Commissioners of any direction given or anything done by the Minister under that Act. Suppose that to be applied to Section 3 of the Act, the remaining powers of which it is admitted are still within the control of the Minister, leaving out paragraphs (i) and (ii), and suppose that the Minister gives a direction that certain appliances or equipments, fixed or movable, shall be moved under Sub-section (4) into a certain dock. That is an exercise of an ordinary minor power of the Minister. The dock company says that it will put them at a disadvantage as compared with some other dock company somewhere else, and it goes to the Railway Commission; and every minor exercise of power by the Minister will be liable to be thus held up by an appeal to the Committee.

Colonel GRETTON: I do not know whether the House realises that the whole position has now been altered and an entirely new set of circumstances has been brought about by this Bill. One of the intentions of this Bill is that the traffic of the country shall be controlled as one whole. That means to a very great extent doing away with competition between railway companies, and whereas previously there were docks competing with the railway companies, and railway companies who had acquired docks could place other docks at
a disadvantage by sending traffic to their own dock, now competition is to be entirely done away with and traffic diverted, in the national interests, from one direction to another. This may be done in various ways. Most people would agree that to develop the facilities of one harbour is not placing another harbour at an undue disadvantage—that is to say, the mere development of facilities for handling grain or any particular class of goods. But it is against other actions of the Minister that some safeguard is required. It may be that this Clause may not in all respects meet the situation, but the principle is right, and those dock companies which have been excepted from the provisions of this Act by the decision of the House this afternoon, do require some protection against competition from the harbours which would be under the control of the railways, and so under the control of the Minister. I think this Clause might well be read a second time, and such Amendments introduced as may be required.

Sir D. MACLEAN: As the hon. and gallant Member for Burton has said, the circumstances are undoubtedly very different from those contemplated in the Bill as it is at present before the House. I agree with the Home Secretary that to pass this Clause in its present form would undoubtedly give great opportunities to any harbour, dock, or pier undertaking which is not at present within the scope of his authority to make things very awkward for him. Those who have had any experience of the procedure before the Railway and Canal Commissioners know what a very wide scope it has, and what a very skilled Bar there is for dealing with all the various points that can be raised. If it is left simply at the mercy, to use the words of the hon. Member, of these two words—"undue disadvantage"— I have no doubt at all that—I will not say use the word "unscrupulous"—but a very determined and financially strong undertaking or group of undertakings could make life very unhappy for the right hon. Gentleman. Then, again, the harbour, dock, and pier undertakings which are not within the ambit of the present powers of the right hon. Gentleman are entitled to some protection, which, I do not think, is in the Bill. I have the Act of 1888 before me—one with which, to a certain extent, we are familiar—and I therefore think that some such words as suggested ought to be
inserted. While agreeing that "undue disadvantage" goes too far, I do not think that the words "undue preference" do, or some similar words. The words "undue preference" have acquired a certain artificial meaning, and they are constantly being argued and discussed before the Railway and Canal Commission. I think this Clause might receive a Second Reading, subject to some Amendment giving the harbour, dock, and port authorities— which are, for the moment, by the decision of the House, outside the immediate purview of the Minister—power to complain to the Railway and Canal Commission of undue preference against them, and I think that that certainly is a power which these authorities are entitled to ask from this House.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: The discussion on this Clause has served a very useful purpose in bringing out that about which there is some confusion of thought— what this Bill is aiming at. As I understand it, the object of the Bill is to secure efficiency of transport for trade. I have never understood from reading the Bill, nor gathered from the speeches of the Home Secretary and the Minister-designate, that it was part of the intention of the Bill to divert the natural channels of trade. My view of the position is that it is the duty of this House to support the Government in making provision for efficient transport for such trade that exists or is likely to arise in the near future. I do not think it can form part of the scope of the Bill to decide how trade is to be dealt with. The moment we convert our Minister of Ways and Communications into a Minister of Trade we are adding very largely to his responsibilities, and, I think, placing upon his shoulders a burden that ought not to be placed upon him and which the House should consider very carefully before it invites him to assume. I can understand, for instance, directions given that harbour authorities which have not been able to make efficient provision for the natural trade of their port should be dealt with, but I do not think the time has come to give directions to harbour authorities not to provide facilities that will if not provided take their trade to another port. If the Bill is to give these extra powers to the Minister, then I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite it is perfectly right that some limitations should be placed upon him so that
he may not use them for the purpose which, I am sure, this House ought not to give him power to exercise. It may be necessary, for the purposes of this Bill, to give the Minister in charge very much wider powers than the House really wishes him to exercise. I accept that. For this reason I support the Bill, and that the House should be generous in giving these powers, but I also myself feel the need for a limitation of these powers. I support the Amendment for this reason, because I think it is right and proper that the dock and harbour authorities should be placed in a position under this Bill to protect themselves within right and proper limits, and by reference to a properly constituted judicial authority.

Mr. SHORTT: I do not think it is possible to accept the Second Reading of this Clause. It is so wide, and I hardly know how it can be amended so as to bring it within the scope of what it is possible to do. The term "undue preference" means great facilities. There is a provision in Clause 3 of the Bill, paragraph (e), which preserves the right to make a claim in regard to undue preference. When we come to that Clause we may consider a provision to give a dock authority the same powers as any trader in connection with the question of undue preference, but to accept a wide suggestion like this, which goes far beyond anything that is known in the way of undue advantage, and goes far beyond matters of rates and facilities, and matters which are usually-heard by the Railway Canal Commissioners—it is difficult, I say, to see how far it does go—is not possible. The term "undue preference" we know, and also that undue disadvantage is used. But "undue disadvantage" I confess I do not know, nor do I know any judgment in any Court which helps us to understand it. For this reason, I must ask the House to reject this proposal, although when we come to Clause 3 we may consider the-question of giving docks the right to claim in matters of undue preference what they fairly and rightly ought to be able to do.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: After listening to what has been said, I come very much to the same opinion as that with which I started, which is that it is very difficult at such short notice to realise exactly how far this Clause has or has not been affected by the Amendments we have already passed this afternoon, and the arrangements which have been made. On
the statement that the whole matter will be reconsidered on Clause 3, I beg leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The following new Clause stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Roads Advisory Committee.)

(a)For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister with respect to and for safeguarding any interests affected by the exercise of the powers and the performance of his duties under this Act in relation to roads and bridges and vehicles and traffic thereon, a committee (hereinafter referred to as the Roads Committee) shall be appointed.

(b) The Roads Committee shall consist of not less than ten members of whom five shall be representative of highway authorities, appointed after consultation with such authorities, and five shall be representative of the users of road traffic, appointed after consultation with the interests concerned, together with a chairman and secretary.

(c) The chairman. Who shall be a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of the Ministry, and the secretary of the Roads Committee shall be appointed by the Minister.

(d) There shall be paid to the secretary of the Roads Committee such salary as the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine.

(e)The Roads Committee may make regulations as to their procedure and method of voting and may at their discretion consider and report to the Minister upon any matters affecting the construction, improvement, or maintenance of roads or bridges, or the regulation of traffic thereon.

(f)Before exercising any powers or performing any duties of the Road Board under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Acts, 1909 and 1910, classifying roads, or establishing or supporting financially any transport service by road the Minister shall refer the matter to the Roads Committee for their advice, and they shall report thereon to him.

The Roads Committee shall make an annual report to the Minister, and such report shall be laid annually before Parliament, and if they think fit the Roads Committee may lay before Parliament any interim report upon matters on which advice is tendered to the Minister under this Section.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not sure that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) would not come better as an Amendment to Clause 17. But perhaps it is a matter of taste, and he may prefer to move it now.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move,
That the Clause be read a second time.
The House knows that for some time past the desirability has been discussed
of inserting some Clause in the Bill so that the local authorities responsible for the roads and also the mass of traffic which uses the roads should have some say in the matters for which the Amendment provides. The fear we have always had—I have stated it quite frankly in this House and in Committee—was that the light hon. Gentleman, being under the necessity primarily of meeting the great railway deficit of £100,000,000 a year, would to some extent cripple the roads in order to meet that deficit—to turn the money as it were into the coffers of the railway company. We were the more frightened in this respect by a remark made by the Leader of the House on the Second Reading, that he hoped the roads at once would, turn to their original purpose as feeders of the railway. Incidentally, I may say we object to the roads being merely feeders of the railways. They are not that, and. should not be that, for they were there long before the railways were. Certainly, most of us in this House are pledged very strongly as to the future of the roads. I am not speaking now on the mere question of the pleasure use of the roads. But the Prime Minister himself, in his election speeches—and I think the right hon. Gentleman also in his speeches in this House —have realised that if the House of Commons develops all these great schemes of. reconstruction, small holdings and so forth, the roads must be enormously developed not only as feeders of the railway, but as separate sources of traction, so as to enable poor people to get further out into the country and the commercial public to-be taken from farm or factory direct to the place to which they wish to go. 1 am one of those who believe, quite frankly, that in a very few years the roads will be used entirely for short-distance traffic to the detriment of the railways, which will only be used for long-distance traffic. I think hon. Members will find that it will not be many years before that takes place. I do not, however, wish to go into the whole question of the roads, because my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have met us in regard to this Clause.
Take the appointment of the Roads Committee. The proposal is that it shall consist of not less than ten members, five of whom shall be appointed by the Minister, and shall represent the highway authorities of the Kingdom. The Ministry is to have great power over the roads and highway authorities—the authorities which are primarily responsible for the well-
being of road locomotion and road traffic. There will be five members representative of the users of road traffic appointed by the Minister after consultation with the interests concerned. I think this is not unreasonable. I have had a request from the Cyclists' Union that they should be considered in this matter; and I have no doubt my right hon. Friend has heard from various sections of road users other than the particular section with whom I am supposed to be more immediately connected. These ten representatives will be in addition to the chairman and secretary appointed by the fight hon. Gentleman. I am assuming, of course, that the services of these gentlemen will be purely voluntary, for I suppose it will not be difficult to get ten gentlemen willing to give their services for the good of the country. In paragraph (e) we provide that
The Roads Committee may make regulation as to their procedure and method of voting and may at their discretion consider and report to the Minister upon any matters affecting the construction, improvement, or maintenance of roads or bridges, or the regulation of traffic thereon.
I do not say that this Clause is all "for which I have been asking. I do not say it is all that my friends, either inside or outside the House, hoped for. We had hoped that the old Road Board, which has done excellent work since instituted by the Prime Minister some ten years ago, and until quite recent date, and until stopped by the War would have been continued. However, my right hon. Friend did not agree to that, and one cannot get everything that one desires in this weary world, particularly from the House of Commons. Therefore I do not press that matter now. But 1 do say that, however difficult it is for me to approach my hon. Friends both inside and outside the House, I do think my right hon. Friend and the Minister have met us fairly in this matter. We have not got all we asked for. The Minister hopes to do a great work. I think the Roads Advisory Committee elected, as I have suggested, will be of very great benefit to the Minister, the local authorities, and the road-users of the country.

Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I beg to second the Motion.
I wish to say how satisfactory it will be to all the large county councils and other highway authorities throughout the country. There has been a very great feeling on this subject, and although it
does not go as far as we hope to go it does set up a road committee which will give to the Minister appointed under this Bill a body to advise him as to the roads. I can never understand why there is a certain amount of feeling amongst the Labour party about this Road Committee, because there are more people amongst the working classes who travel by motors and rubber tyres than any other class. In London alone you have only to look at the motor 'buses every day. There are great industries that are unable to get their material by railways, and they are supplying work for men throughout the country and they depend upon the roads entirely for their material. I am sure this Committee, which is some help to us, will be very much appreciated by all the great highway authorities in the country.

Mr. J. JONES: I cannot quite understand why hon. Members seem to imagine that national interests end and begin with railways. We naturally imagine that roads, docks, and all other means of communication are also national in their ramifications and interests. We have discovered during this Debate that in the case of railways everybody is willing to give way, particularly those who are thinking they arc going to get something out of it. All the others say, "Do not touch our property, we are local, and have nothing to do with national interests." Liverpool dominates London, and Glasgow controls the lot, and so we have a combination of interests which leads us to imagine that the promises made before the last election were so much camouflage. What is proposed in this Amendment? It is suggested that the roads shall become competitors with the railways without any regard to national interests. May I point out that if it is true what has been suggested that motor traction is going to be the great force of the future, the only conclusion we can arrive at as ignorant Members on the Labour Benches, and particularly those on the Back Bench of all is that the railways—the first means of national traction—are going to be destroyed by the last means—the motor.
We believe in the unification of all forms of traction, whether on the road, the water, or the air, and if that be so, what becomes of this Amendment? They look very nice on the paper, but it is not on the paper that we have to look, but to the spirit behind the paper. With all due deference to some of those who are
moving these Amendments, I suggest that vested interests count for a great deal more than the mere figures on the paper. As members of the Labour party, we stand for the unification of all forms of transit as the greatest means of reconstruction. This Bill was put forward in the first days of this Parliament as the greatest Bill in the Government programme of reconstruction, and we have supported it right through, not because we agreed with every detail, and not because we imagined we were going to get a new heaven and a new earth, but when we find Amendment after Amendment curtailing the purposes of the Bill, destroying its objects, and limiting its capacity, then we suggest that all this talk before the election was simply promises made never to be performed.
We are asking that at least some section shall be retained to give us power over our great national highways. I am a member of a road authority, and we have to maintain roads; but some of those speaking in favour of this Amendment use the roads and pay nothing for them. In the London area who are the members of this road authority going to be? Are they those who stand for the maintenance of public roads, or for the maintenance of private rights? We oppose this Amendment, because it means to limit the possibilities of local and public control. It seems to me, when I read the Amendment in regard to the bigger authorities, that the road authorities say to the 'bus companies and the tramway companies, "You scratch my back and I will scratch yours," and when these Amendments come forward we will all back one another up, just to show there is no ill feeling. We want public control of pubic authorities, and roadways are really public, because the public have to pay for them. We claim in the establishment of a Ways and Communications Authority that the Minister ought to have first control and take into consideration those public interests which have to pay the bill.

Sir E. GEDDES: I will confine my remarks to the simple point of this Road Advisory Committee. In agreeing to adopt a special Advisory Committee for roads the Government was actuated by the somewhat peculiar position in which roads are compared with any other form of transportation, and I include them as one of the means of transport. There are 2,000 authorities in this country dealing with
roads and they are not maintained by a limited number but by a great number of boards, and it is manifestly the right thing that roads and road traffic should form—I do not wish to commit myself too definitely —a separate branch of this great Ministry of transportation which I hope will prevent the unnecessary competition of the various means of transportation for which the nation pays.
We have provided under Section 17 of the Bill in Committee for advisory committees on all these various subjects and various cardinal matters which the Bill deals with, and this Advisory Committee is one which I think is thoroughly justifiable in a particular way, and specifically so because of the peculiar position of roads. They are maintained locally. The users and road-maintaining authorities are different people, and it seems reasonable that we" should specifically say more than under Clause 17 that there shall be a special Advisory Committee. What I wish to point out is that this special Advisory Committee has not got the right to say that this or that shall or shall not be done. It is simply an Advisory Committee and has no executive power. The powers are exactly the same as they were when the Bill left the Committee. It is merely advisory and I hope my hon. Friend will not vote against this Amendment because it does not in any way restrict the powers of the Ministry.

Major PRESCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how is it possible for a Committee appointed by the highway authorities to give him advice and assistance with regard to the construction of roads and bridges?

Sir E. GEDDES: The Committee is appointed by the Minister and not by the highway authorities.

Major PRESCOTT: The words are, "After consultation with the highway authorities."

Sir E. GEDDES: My hon. Friend will not deny that the highway authorities have amongst them some very eminent specialists in road construction on their staff, and I cannot imagine that it is in the least likely that they will appoint someone who knows nothing about roads. The appointments rest with the Minister right through.

Sir H. NIELD: I think the hon. Member who has just spoken has a right
to speak with regard to road construction, for he has in the past given very valuable assistance to road authorities. I can speak as a member for the last twenty-five years of one of the county councils whose area takes in almost all the roads that radiate north-east or west of the Thames. I cannot understand the objection urged by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones) for the constitution of this Committee. It is not a Committee which has executive powers. It is only a consultative and advisory Committee, and it is constituted in such a way which I should have thought would have put upon it the complexion of democracy as a restraining authority against autocracy. I should have thought the hon. Member would have welcomed anything which restrains autocracy in matters of this sort. It seems essential that we should have a road authority of this description in place of the Road Board, which but for the War would have gone on carrying out some very valuable improvements. This kind of work is far better carried out in consultation with a Ministry of this sort than it would be if left entirely to Departmental officials. I am quite sure time will prove that this is a wise suggestion. While it does not enable this Committee to supersede or even suspend any work the Minister may take upon himself the authority of carrying out, it does at any rate give him the advantage, not only of expert advice, because it is absurd to think that those who are appointed without salary on matters of road construction will not be men of practical experience with very long years of experience in road making.
8.0 P.M.
I wish my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden had been with us this afternoon. He himself has complete confidence in General Maybury. General Maybury, I understand, will remain in charge of this Department at the Ministry, and he has demonstrated as a member of local authorities, the chairman of county councils, etc., that he is a man to be trusted. He is to remain. What better guarantee is there than that such a man should be in charge of the Department? My hon. Friend is unduly suspicious. Those who live on these roads have their nights rendered sleepless by the shaking of the modern house when these huge cargoes of timber and other material are brought along the highway. I am convinced that there is nothing in this quali-
fication of the Clause as it left the Committee which ought to disturb the mind of any Member.

Mr. SPENCER: The Clauses we have been previously dealing with belonging to this Bill have given colour to the suspicions which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Silvertown. The object of the Amendment seems to be that vested interests upon the roads are going to be invested with undue authority as against the public interest. The object of this Bill is supposed to be that, first and foremost, of transport convenience for the public, and if this Amendment is carried in its present form with five members representing those who use the roads and traffic, it seems to us that you are not looking after the interests of the public, but that this Amendment has been drafted with the object of giving undue preference to those who will use the roads as against the means of transport which the Government are running in the interests of the public. The last speaker has said the suspicions are groundless because the functions of this Committee will be purely advisory, that they will not have any definite powers of their own. The only thing that they can do is to report to the Minister who will have charge of the transportation of the country. If that is perfectly true, if they have no power, what guarantee have we after what we have seen this afternoon, after the Labour Members, fighting side by side with the Government in Committee to save them and their Bill from disaster, when the Government received, even last night, a deputation representing vested interests, and have to-day transformed in certain important particulars their own measure— what guarantee had we if you have a Committee of this character who are only acting in an advisory capacity, that they are not going to have the same influence over the Government with their recommendations as the four or five people had last night who had determined a fresh policy to-day than that which they pursued in Committee? In view of the changing policy of the Government in respect of the vested interests, first in the docks and harbour and canals, we feel that we cannot even trust the Government to do justice to the public interest as against private interests, and if there is to be a private Committee, so far as these benches are concerned, we would rather have that Committee representative entirely of the highway authority, the elected body of the
district, and not by powers representing private interests. If these powers are contributing to the rates it is in a small manner, and really the whole burden of maintaining the roads and bridges falls upon the public bodies. We have been told that the local authorities may have representatives who do not understand roads. I think it would be fair to say that as far as London traffic is concerned there is not one out of every 100 who have vested interests in London traffic who know a single thing in road construction, and yet they

have the right to send five representatives whether they know anything or not. They would have the right to submit the names to the Minister. So far as the Labour party is concerned, if there is to be an advisory committee, we believe that committee should be entirely representative of those people who send them to the highway authority, and not representative of any vested interest at all.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 47.

Division No. 52.]
AYES.
[8.9 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Dockrell, Sir M.
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)


Astbury, Lt.-Com. F. W.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Joynson-Hicks, William


Atkey, A. R.
Duncannon, Viscount
Kellaway, Frederick George


Austin, Sir H.
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Edge, Captain William
Kiley, James Daniel


Baird, John Lawrence
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
King, Com. Douglas


Baldwin, Stanley
Elliot, capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Knights, Capt. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Lane-Fox, Major G. R.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. N. (Gorbals)
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Larmor, Sir J.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Fell, Sir Arthur
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)


Barnett, Captain Richard W.
FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Foreman, H.
Lonsdale, James R.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lorden, John William


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lort-Williams, J.


Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)
Galbraith, Samuel
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Benn, Cant. W. (Leith)
Gange, E. S.
M'Curdy, Charles Albert


Bennett, T. J.
Gardiner, J. (Perth)
M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)


Bigland, Alfred
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)


Birchall, Major J. D.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)


Blades, Sir George R.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Blair, Major Reginald
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)


Blane, T. A.
Glyn, Major R.
Mallalieu, Frederick William


Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.
Martin, A. E.


Berwick, Major G. O.
Gray, Major E.
Mason, Robert


Bowles, Col. H. F.
Greame, Major P. Lloyd-
Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Green, A. (Derby)
Middlebrook, Sir William


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Mitchell, William Lane-


Brackenbury, Col. H. L.
Greer, Harry
Moles, Thomas


Bramsdon, Sir T,
Gregory, Holman
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Breese, Major C. E.
Gretton, Colonel John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut-Col. J. T. C.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Griggs, Sir Peter
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morris, Richard


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughboro')
Mosley, Oswald


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gwynne, R. S.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Hailwood, A.
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Murray, John (Leeds, W.)


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)
Murray, William (Dumfries)


Campbell, J. G. D.
Haslam, Lewis
Neal, Arthur


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Henderson, Major V. L.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)


Carr, W. T.
Hennessy, Major G.
Nield, Sir Herbert


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Casey, T. W.
Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.
O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Chadwick, R. Burton
Hinds, John
Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Parker, James


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hood, Joseph
Parry, Major Thomas Henry


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Hope, Harry (Stirling)
Pearce, Sir William


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pernefather, De Fonblanque


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Percy, Charles


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Horne, Edgar (Guildford)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Howard, Major S. G.
Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)


Coots. W. (Tyrone, S.)
Hudson, R. M.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff)
Hunter-Weston, Lieut-Gen. Sir A. G.
Pratt, John William


Courthope, Major George Loyd
Hurst, Major G. B.
Prescott, Major W. H.


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Purchase, H. G.


Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry
Jephcott, A. R.
Rae, H. Norman


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Johnson, L. S.
Raeburn, Sir William


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Johnstone, J.
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Dawes, J. A.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Ramsden, G. T.


Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Raper, A. Baldwin
Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Weigail, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.


Remer, J. B.
Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville
Whitla, Sir William


Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson


Renwick, G.
Stevens, Marshall
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)
Sugden, W. H.
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Rodger, A. K.
Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Roundell, Lieut-Colonel R. F.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)


Royden, Sir Thomas
Tickler, Thomas George
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Tryon, Major George Clement
Wolmer, Viscount


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Vickers, D.
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)
Waddington, R.
Worsfold, T. Cato


Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Walker, Col. William Hall
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)
Wallace, J.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Seager, Sir William
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)



Seddon, J. A.
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E


Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)
Wardle, George J.
Talbot and Captain F. Guest.


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, V.
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Arnold, Sydney
Hayday, A.
Sitch, C. H.


Bowerman, Right Hon. C. W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Smith, W (Wellingborough)


Briant, F.
Holmes, J. S.
Spencer, George A.


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Spoor, B. G.


Cape, Tom
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Swan, J. E. C.


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Kenyan, Barnet
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lunn, William
Tootill, Robert


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Nall, Major Joseph
Wignall, James


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Newbould, A. E.
Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)


Glanville, Harold James
O'Grady, James
Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Lt.-Col.


Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Royce, William Stapleton
Thorns and Mr. Tyson Wilson.


Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Sexton, James



Question put, and agreed to.

Amendments made: In paragraph (c), leave out the words "who shall be a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of the Ministry."

Leave out paragraph (d).

Leave out paragraph (f).—[Mr. Shortt.]

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Right of Traders to Appeal to Railway and Canal Commission.)

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the rights of a consignor or consignee of goods or minerals, any trader or class of traders, or any port or harbour authority or dock company to complain to the Railway and Canal Commission under the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts in respect of the provision of reasonable facilities, undue preference, or undue disadvantage, or allowances, or rebates in relation to the provision of station accommodation or terminal services shall not be deemed to be affected, and it shall be no answer to any such complaint that' the railway company in respect of which the complaint is made was acting under the directions of the Minister.—[Mr. JoynsonHicks.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move,
That the Clause be read a second time.
I really do not see why my right hon. Friend should not accept it. It will do no harm to my hon. Friends above the
Gangway, and I think it must be admitted that it is quite a non-contentious Clause. Under the provisions of the Bill the Minister takes over from the company the responsibilities and powers of railway companies, and in regard to charges and facilities the railways are entirely under his control. Before this Bill was passed there were various Acts of Parliament passed at the instance of the trading community in order to protect the rights of that community against oppression by the railway companies, and preventing the companies giving undue preference to any particular port or trader, or undue disadvantage by giving allowances and rebates to one trader against another. We have heard in Debates in this House and in the public Press of cases in which railways have from time to time enabled traffic in goods coming from abroad to reach our great centres of the population more cheaply than goods coming from parts of this country. For instance, fruit from the Channel Islands to the Midlands has been carried more cheaply than fruit from Kent. These questions have lately been dealt with by the Railway and Canal Commission which was set up in order to provide some tribunal to which the public or any-
body interested in railway matters could appeal against arbitrary or unfair action on the part of companies. No doubt the work of that Commission has been exceedingly beneficial to the trade of the country. The Mansion House Association with regard to railway rates was formed for the purpose of keeping a check on the railway companies by appeal, if necessary, to the Railway and Canal Commission. That association is still in existence. It has done very good work. Although the Minister is now responsible. the object of my Clause is to secure that it shall be no answer to any complaint for the railway company to say that it is acting under the direction of the Ministry. It is sought to provide that if complaint is made to the Railway Commission, it shall be no answer to say, "We are acting under the direction of this Minister under the special provisions of the Ways and Communications Act of 1919, and, therefore, we cannot help ourselves. Whether it is a case of undue preference or unfair advantage, we have no option, because we have been told to make the charge, and therefore we cannot be taken before the Railway Commission." There are one or two points in connection with this Clause that I would like to make quite clear. Take the question of undue preference or undue disadvantage, which can be proved quite easily. Suppose the railway company charges 20s.per ton to carry goods from Hull to London, and it charged either a lesser or a higher rate to carry the same class of goods from Immingham to London. That, of course, would be perfectly unfair to the traders who are in the habit of using Immingham port. Let me put even an easier case. Bananas mostly come to Bristol. Supposing for some reason the Minister thought it desirable to transfer the traffic from Bristol to Southampton. It would be quite simple to say to the railway company, "You shall charge 20s. a ton for carrying bananas from Southampton to London, but the Great Western Railway shall charge £5 a ton for carrying them from Bristol to London." That would kill the banana trade at Bristol and move it to Southampton. It may or may not be desirable, but it would certainly be unfair to the people who have been in the habit of carrying on the importation of bananas at Bristol. Anything could be done by altering the rates for carrying produce. It is quite right that some power should be reserved
to someone, and I can think of no better body than the Railway Commissioners to whom the traders of a port may go and say, "The action of the railway companies under the Orders of the Ministry is going to ruin the trade." Then there is the question of reasonable facilities. These arise under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1884, Section 2 and Section 25 of the Railway and Canal Act, 1888. For instance, a railway company may refuse to carry a certain class of goods at all. At present the person who wants the goods carried can go to the Railway Commissioners and insist upon the company giving him reasonable facilities. The question of fruit from Kent occurs to anyone at once. The railway company may say, "We do not like this traffic, it is not very paying to us, and we are not going to carry it any longer." Under the present law the fruit grower can go to the Commission and say, "I must have reasonable facilities for carrying my fruit." I want that right to be preserved
Then there is the question of station accommodation and terminal services. The trader may have a private siding, and he is entitled, if he does not get proper terminal facilities and arrangements for running his train in and out of the siding, to go to the Railway Commissioners and say, "I must have proper railway facilities into my siding." I want that right reserved, too. These are the main rights which are now preserved to traders. The right hon. Gentleman will probably say, as he has said to so many of my Amendments, that it would knock the bottom out of the Bill. That was rather his common from of commencing any objections to my Amendments. But, after all, he came in the course of Debate to be more reasonable When I moved a Clause in regard to undue preference, he would not have it, for a moment, and he made a furious speech, and said that it: undue preference rates were retained the whole bottom would be knocked out of the Bill. However, he came to realise that I was not such a terrible person as he thought, and honest and fair proposals, suitable both to the railway companies, to the Ministry, and also to the trading community, were established with regard to undue preference. I want something of the same kind in regard to these other points, because undue preference has come to have a rather technical meaning. I am afraid it has not been altered by the
provisions of the Bill. But there are other matters besides undue preference that ought to be preserved in some way or another, and 1 think something should be done. I am not wedded to the actual words of the Amendment. I think the right hon. Gentleman could propose a certain form of words which would preserve to the trading community the rights which they have now. We have accepted the Bill, and I am quite prepared now to do all I can to help the Minister in making it of advantage to the country. After all, we are a trading country, and upon the success or otherwise of the trade of the country depends the well-being of the country and of the great mass of labour which is engaged in trade. I am asking for nothing new. I want the right hon. Gentleman merely to preserve to the trading community the rights which the wisdom of Parliament has already given them.

Mr. SEXTON: I beg to second the Motion.
I do so just to show that there is no ill-feeling and to heap coals of fire on the hon. Member's head. I represent a peculiarly industrial constituency, having vital staple industries, such as chemicals and glass. For more than half a century it has enjoyed a preference rate much lower than the ordinary rate. 1 believe this Amendment safeguards those rights and still retains the preference rates for this industry, no matter how high the rates may go in other directions. It would be ruinous to the constituency I represent if some safeguard was not provided to retain the preference rates they have at present.

Mr. SHORTT: I assure the hon. Member that the Amendment will not touch the particular case of his constituents. If it has any effect at all, it will take away the undue preference they enjoy. But it will not touch them at all. Their preference rests upon a statutory contract, if I remember rightly, and as long as it exists they will have the advantage of it. If the Bill takes it away, they lose it, and this Amendment will not preserve it.

Mr. SEXTON: It is not an Act of Parliament at all.

Mr. SHORTT: Then it is all the more easy to take it away, and this Amendment will not preserve it in the slightest. The Amendment is really much too wide as it
is drawn. Its result will be not merely to prevent unfairness as between traders, but to enable any trader who chose to say "You have taken away a facility, or have not given me some allowance that I ought to have" to hold up the Ministry by taking it before the Railway and Canal Commission. It is not an expeditious procedure before that Commission. I do not say it is worse than other Courts, but a case takes some time to get up, and it can always be dragged out and can hold up the Ministry to a very great extent. This is chiefly aimed at what is done under Clause 3. The hon. Member himself has apparently appreciated that any safeguards of this kind would be better discussed on Clause 3 than on the new-Clause. If it is put in as a new Clause it is permanent, but if it is discussed in Clause 3 then it is a two years' arrangement, and if there is any chance of unfairness to traders it can be discussed on Clause 3 and we can discuss what are the proper safeguards. My hon. Friend no-doubt appreciates that, because if hon. Members will look on the Amendment Paper they will see an Amendment to line 42 on page 5 of the Bill, and will find this identical Amendment put clown for discussion under Clause 3. That is the proper place to discuss it. It is not a matter for a new Clause at all. If there is anything in Clause 3 which is going to affect unfairly any individual, whether he is a trader or whatever he may be, we want if possible to avoid that, but we do not want by a new Clause to put powers into the hands of obstructionists which would be used to the immense detriment of the usefulness of this Bill. The new Clause as drawn goes far beyond the prevention of unfairness, and therefore I ask the House not to accept it

Mr. STEVENS: The Home Secretary has given a statement which is contradictory. He said that this did not affect the interests referred to and later on he said that those interests had advantages which could be taken away from them by the Minister if this Bill proceeds, and they have no appeal unless they could appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission under this scheme.

Sir W. PEARCE: I am glad the Minister agrees that there is something in the new Clause. It does not matter to me whether it is dealt with now or later on under Clause 3. The London Chamber of Commerce has passed a resolution, which I received this morning, which state:
This chamber regards the retention of the right to complain to the Railway and Canal Commission as of the utmost importance as a safeguard to the interests of traders and the public.
This matter is of considerable importance, and so long as the Home Secretary will deal with it in another place, I do not want to press him now, but I want to support the hon. Member for Twickenham in assuring the Government that this is a point which is viewed with considerable anxiety by chambers of commerce and the trading community generally.

Mr. CLYNES: I should like to associate myself with what has been said, and to ask for more explicit statements from the right hon. Gentleman than the House has so far received. It is immaterial whether the question is discussed here or in relation to Clause 3, but if when we reach Clause 3 we are to receive only the same sort of answer as has been given in the discussion now, we have made no progress. I did not gather from the terms of opposition levelled against this Amendment that when we reach another page of the Amendment Paper the attitude of the Home Secretary will be in any way altered. The terms of the Amendment later on are exactly the terms we are now considering. Therefore, I would like to know whether it is intended that when we reach Clause 3 the attitude of the Government will be altered in relation to this proposal. I look upon the proposal as distinctly in the public interest. It is true that it will expose the head of the Department, and occasionally the Government in this House, to the irritation which Ministers feel when criticism is levelled against them, or whenever occasion is taken by somebody who proposes to interfere with what a State Department is doing. But what are heads of Departments for but to meet and deal with criticism levelled against them, either in this House or out of it? I think the probability of traders taking upon themselves to invoke proceedings against the Minister is not completely answered by the reply that any sort of odd trader could frivolously take action against the Ministry. It has been admitted that it is not only a long proceeding, but a costly proceeding, because it is long, and even in these days traders have not so large a margin of money as to wish foolishly and frivolously to throw it away on proceedings which have no real purpose. The right hon. Gentleman said that the terms
of this Amendment were too wide to obtain the object in view. Surely he must have forgotten what was said by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, when he pointed out that he did not claim perfect draftsmanship, and indicated his willingness to accept any set of words more skilfully framed to meet the object in view. As the Government and those who are behind this Amendment are agreed as to the object in view, I think some assurance ought to be given that language will be found to reach that agreement, and that we ought not to be left with the gloomy prospect which has been foreshadowed when we reach Clause 3. Accordingly I invite the right hon. Gentleman to make a more explicit statement as to whether there is any hope of the House having its wishes met in regard to the intentions of this particular Amendment.

Mr. G. THORNE: I wish to join in that invitation. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks did not go far enough. He said that this Amendment went too far. I expected to hear afterwards that he would indicate how far he himself was prepared to go. It does seem to me, either on this Amendment modified and altered, or at some later stage, we ought to have an assurance from the Government that they will do their best to meet the real gist of the Amendment now before the House.

Mr. SHORTT: Naturally the Government will always be very anxious to do all they can to meet the wishes of the House, but I cannot pledge myself to meet what is meant by this Amendment, because it is so wide, but it is very difficult to know what it is aiming at. My hon. and learned Friend has said that in the Committee upstairs I changed my views, and that apparently he was not so wicked as I thought he was. I have not changed my views. I am just as suspicious of him now as I was before.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was going to say that perhaps you never thought I was wicked.

Mr. SHORTT: That was the last thing I was going to say. At the same time 1 think I made it clear that if it is necessary to safeguard any individual who may be unfairly treated under this Bill, we are very anxious to do it, and we have in Clause 3 repeated word for word this Amendment. I think the hon. Member must appreciate that that is the proper place to discuss it. There we have pre-
served all claims in regard to undue preference. If there are any other matters which ought to be preserved in Clause 3 for the protection of the public, we shall be pleased to introduce them, but I cannot promise anything so wide as that I will endeavour to find words to carry out the intentions of an Amendment whose intentions I do not know. Any proposal that is put forward for the protection of the trader or any other member of the community will receive most careful consideration. We have already introduced in Clause 3 words protecting traders in the matter of undue preference, and if hon. Members can suggest any other matter which requires protection we will give it careful and sympathetic consideration.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: After what has been said I am very anxious that this Clause should not be lost in some form or another. The reason why I put it down as a Clause and as an Amendment was that I was not sure which would be the right place. As it turned out Mr. Speaker thought that this was the right place. I think the general sense of the House is that something ought to be preserved for the trading community. In these circumstances I think it is better to withdraw the Clause now, and to bring it up in some similar form of words on Clause 3, and in the meantime perhaps my right hon. Friend would be willing to consult with me or with his own advisers, who might be able to tell him that something of the kind is essential. I might even suggest that the Rates Committee which we established upstairs for another purpose might be used by traders with a right of appeal. However, my right hon. Friend (Mr. Shortt) has not given us as much hope as I thought he would give. But if my right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) thinks that this would be a wise course I certainly feel myself that a night's reflection would do the Home Secretary good and will withdraw the Clause now so that it may be raised in another form.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Appeal as to Bridges.)

An appeal shall lie to the Minister in respect of any restriction upon any traffic passing over or seeking to cross any bridge or culvert, and the Minister shall have power notwithstanding any provision in any other statute to make such Order as he may think fit concerning the strengthening, standard of maintenance, and
maintenance of any bridge or culvert, the traffic using it, or seeking to use it, and apportionment of any expenditure involved.—[Mr. JoynsonHicks.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move,
That the Clause be read a second time.
There is a large number of bridges throughout the country, some, not many I am glad to say, belonging to highway authorities, some to railway authorities, and some to canal people, which have gradually got too light and feeble to carry the traffic which is now wanting to get upon them. The question has been raised in Courts of law, as to who should strengthen these bridges. The owner has the right to put a notice on the bridge, stating that the bridge is not strong enough to carry traffic of a certain weight. Very often these notices are put on bridges without any veal necessity. A few years ago a railway company, in a case in which I was professionally concerned, put up notices on a series of bridges which closed the whole of a large section of the central part of Western England to traction-engine traffic. Considerable quantities of goods have to be carried by traction engines which cannot be carried on railways—huge castings and; things which are too wide to go on railways or to allow another train to pass them. These have to be carted by heavy haulage traffic. During the War there was a great deal of very important traffic of this kind from one side of the country to the other. It is very difficult to deal with the whole question, and I am asking the House to give power to the Minister, when there is a complaint with regard to-one of these bridges, to deal with the matter and to say that the bridge should be left in its present position, or should be reconstructed or improved, as the case may be, and also to say who is to do the work. Possibly the railway authority may say, "We will do part of it," and the highway authority may say, "We will do part of it." Somebody must decide, but at present there is nobody to decide who shall pay the cost of maintaining the bridge and fitting it to deal with traffic at the present day. The Minister of Ways and Communications is the proper person to have this additional power given to him. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think that I am becoming too friendly in offering this additional power, but I think that it is well within the scope of his powers under this Bill.

Mr. STEVENS: I beg to second the Motion.

Sir E. GEDDES: This is giving a power to the Minister which he may exercise or not, as he likes. I feel that it would be ungracious of me to do anything but accept powers which the House wishes to give to the Government.

Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment of Minister of Ways and Communications.)

For the purpose of improving the means of, and the facilities for, locomotion and transport, it shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister of Ways and Communications (hereinafter referred to as the Minister), who shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The first three Amendments on the Paper have been covered by what has already been done.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think that there is anything which prevents the Bill being restricted to railways. All that has been done is to deal with certain powers with regards to docks and harbours. That leaves tramways and canals. The first Amendment which stands in my name is, after the word "for" ["for locomotion"], to insert the word "railway," and I do not desire to move this with a view to restricting the Bill to railways, but in order to have a financial discussion with the officials of the Board of Trade, to clear up the question of the £100,000,000 deficit. I see no official of the Board of Trade here, and I do not know whether there is any good in going into these questions to-day. They have been raised in the House during the last few weeks. If my right hon. Friend is prepared to deal with that point, I will raise it now. If not, I do not want to take up the time of the House now.

Sir E. GEDDES: I cannot answer for the Board of Trade or for any estimate that the Board of Trade has made. Any figures which I gave—and there has been a great deal of comment on what I said in my Second Reading speech—were supplied to me by the Board of Trade, because, as the House will know, I have no Department of my own. Speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, I made several references—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have not anything before the House. I was not clear whether the hon. Member was moving his Amendment. This seems to me to be a rather inconvenient place for the large discussion which the Amendment of the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the House thinks it better, I could raise it on the Third Reading. What I want is, not to move an Amendment in the Bill, but to utilise the Bill—which is a justifiable Parliamentary procedure—to raise a discussion on the £100,000,000 deficit some time or other. We have tried to get this information by question and answer, but have not succeeded. But the country does want to go fully into the question. As the Board of Trade is not represented here, I do not want to make the Minister responsible for figures collected by other Departments. But I will take the opportunity of raising the matter on some other Clause of the Bill, or, if I cannot get it on a Clause, on the Third Reading.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that it would be better on the Third Reading, or, perhaps, on the first of the Financial Clauses.

Sir W. PEARCE: I beg to move, to leave out the words "Ways and Communications," and to insert instead thereof the word "Transport."
It was generally considered in the Committee that the present title, "Minister of Ways and Communications," is too long. It was described as cumbersome, and if the Minister will be prepared to alter the title, and accept the word "Transport," it would reduce the length of the title to one line, and you will have one line for the title in every Clause, and in this way the whole Bill would be somewhat reduced. I think that the public generally have begun to recognise this Bill as the Transport Bill, and although "Ways and Communications" is rather a, pretty phrase, it is almost early Victorian. We have to consider the public convenience. I submit that "Transport Bill" is a better designation of the Bill. The matter was twice discussed in Committee and the Committee were almost unanimous for the change. The Government agreed to consider whether an alteration in title might not be arranged. It is not a matter of great importance, but I think I have voiced the opinion of nearly every member of the Committee when I urge the alteration of the title to "Transport."

Mr. A. SHAW: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir E. GEDDES: It is largely a matter of taste as to whether it is to be a Ministry of Transport or a Ministry of Ways and Communications. I agree with the Mover of the Amendment that the word "Transport" is applied to a certain extent in speaking of the new Ministry, but recently I have observed an improvement in the references to the Ministry and it has been increasingly called "Ministry of Ways and Communications." We prefer the title "Ways and Communications." If the House has any strong view on the subject it is not a matter of great importance. I do not think that any expenditure in writing out the longer title would be a very serious burden on the country, but the title was chosen after considerable discussion and because it seemed best to describe what was intended. I will leave it to the House, but as it is quite possible that I shall be the first Minister, perhaps the House will allow me to have a personal view on the matter.

Mr. J. JOHNSTONE: In Committee upstairs there was a strong feeling that the word "Transport" was more concise and would suit the purpose far better than the long-winded title "Ways and Communications." I trust the Minister will not press his objection to the change.

Mr. WIGNALL: It may be asked, "What's in a name?" We want a title expressive of what it is intended to mean.

"Transport" means, of course, the conveyance of goods and animals and passengers, and it is true that roads and railways are the means of transport and conveyance. If this Bill was simply a transport Bill, I think "Transport" would be the correct title for it, but when there is embodied in the Bill the ownership of the roads and the docks and the piers, and all the means of communications, I think the present title is more comprehensive. I did not like it at first. I thought it was a very awkward title and one that was very difficult to use freely, but now we have become accustomed to it and it seems to me that more confusion than good would be created by changing it.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I wish to support the Amendment. I have some recollection that in Germany a corresponding Ministry is designated "The Ministry of Ways and Communication's." [Sir E. Geddes: "No."] That, to my mind, would be an all-sufficient reason for retaining the title.

Mr. R. M'LAREN: I rise to support the new name. I think the word "Transport" takes in everything in ways and communications, and it would be well if the Minister could accept the new name at once.

Question put,
That the words, 'Ways and Communications ' stand part of the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 65.

Division No. 53]
AYES.
[9.4 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Forestier-Walker, L.
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)


Baird, John Lawrence
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Martin, A. E.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Galbraith, Samuel
Mason, Robert


Barnett, Captain Richard W.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Middlebrook, Sir William


Back, Arthur Cecil
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Mosley, Oswald


Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)
Glyn, Major R.
Murray, William (Dumfries)


Birchall, Major J. D.
Gregory, Holman
Newbould, A. E.


Brackenbury, Col. H. L.
Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)


Bramsdon, Sir T.
Griggs, Sir Peter
Parker, James


Britton, G. B.
Grundy, T. W,
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Hennessy, Major G.
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Cape, Tom
Milder, Lieutenant-Colonel F.
Rae, H. Norman


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Ramsden, G. T.


Casey, T. W.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Richardson, R. (Houghton)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hope, Harry (Stirling)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Coote, William (Tyrone, S.)
Home, Sir Robert (Billhead)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Rowlands, James


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Royce, William Stapleton


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Knights, Capt. H.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Dawes, J. A.
Larmor, Sir J.
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Dockrell, Sir M.
Law, Right Han. A, Bonar (Glasgow)
Seager, Sir William


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Lort-Williams, J.
Sexton, James


Foreman, H.
Lunn, William
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar)


Short, A. (Wednesbury)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Sitch, C. H.
Tootill, Robert
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Spencer, George A.
Wardle. George J.
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville
Waterson, A. E.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Stephenson, Col. H. K.
Wignall, James



Swan, J. E. C.
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr-


Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chichester)
Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)
Remer and Col. Ward,


Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)




NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Holmes, J. S.
Nield, Sir Herbert


Armitage, Robert
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Arnold, Sydney
Howard, Major S. G.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Astbury, Lt.-Com. F. W.
Hurst, Major G. B.
Perring, William George


Austin, Sir H.
Jodrell, N. P.
Pratt, John William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Johnson, L. S.
Prescott, Major W. H.


Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)
Johnstone, J.
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Bower man, Right Hon. C. W.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Renwick, G.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Kellaway, Frederick George
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Campbell, J. G. D.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Rodger, A. K.


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Kenyon, Barnet
Stevens, Marshall


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kiley, James Daniel
Sugden, W. H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
King, Com. Douglas
Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Gange, E. S.
Lorden, John William
Wallace, J.


Gardiner, J. (Perth)
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Glanville, Harold James
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mitchell, William Lane-
Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)


Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.



Haslam, Lewis
Morgan, Major D. Watts
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir W.


Hayday, A.
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Pearce and Mr. A. Shaw,


Hogge, J. M.
Neal, Arthur

CLAUSE 2.—(Powers and Duties.)

(1) It shall be the duty of the Minister in the exercise and performance of any powers and duties transferred to, or conferred or imposed upon him, by or in pursuance of this Act, to take steps to carry out the purposes aforesaid, and there shall, as from such date or dates as His Majesty in Council may by Order determine, be transferred to the Minister all powers and duties of any Government Department in relation to—

(a)railways;
(b)light railways;
(c)tramways;
(d) canals, waterways, and inland navigations; 
(e) roads, bridges and ferries, and vehicles and traffic thereon; 
(f) harbours, docks and piers;
including any powers and duties of any Government Department in relation to any railway, light railway, tramway, canal, inland navigation, harbour, dock, pier, or other undertaking concerned with any of the matters aforesaid, and any powers of any Government Department with respect to the appointment of members or the procedure of any commissioners, conservancy board or other body having jurisdiction with respect to any such matters as aforesaid, and any powers of any Government Department with respect to the making, confirming, issuing, granting, or giving (as the case may be) by-laws, regulations, orders, licences, approvals, or consents relating to any of the matters hereinbefore mentioned:
Provided that—

(i) His Majesty in Council may by Order except from such transfer any particular powers or duties, or provide for the exercise or performance of any power or duty so excepted by the Minister con-currently or in consultation with or at the instance of the Government
896
Department concerned concurrently or in consultation with the Minister, or provide for the retransfer to any such Department of any powers and duties transferred to the Minister by this Section; and
(ii) Nothing in this Section shall transfer to the Minister any powers or duties of the Admiralty exerciseable in or in relation to ports declared under the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act, 1865, to be dockyard ports, but His Majesty in Council may by Order transfer to the Admiralty, instead of to the Minister, any of the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to dockyard ports, or with respect to the appointment of members of any commissioners, conservancy board, or other body having jurisdiction in the whole or any part of a dockyard port; and
(iii) Nothing in this Section shall transfer to the Minister the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to the appointment of members or the procedure of the Railway and Canal Commission, but His Majesty in Council may, by Order, transfer those powers to a Secretary of State instead of to the Minister.

(2) His Majesty in Council may by Order make such incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of' giving full effect to any transfer of powers or duties by or under this Section, including provisions for the transfer of any property, rights and liabilities held, enjoyed, incurred by any Government Department in connection with any powers or duties transferred and may make such adaptations in the enactments relating to such powers or duties as may be necessary to make exerciseable by the Minister and his officers or by the Admiralty and their officers, as the case may be, the powers and
duties so transferred: Provided always that nothing herein contained shall enable the powers so transferred to be increased.

(3) In connection with the transfer of powers and duties to the Minister or the Admiralty by or under this Act, the provisions set out in the Schedule to this Act shall have effect.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "(c) tramways."
I think, if I remember aright, this Clause is in reality excluded from the Bill. I would refer the House to the speech of the Minister-Designate, and I think when they hear the words he used they will agree that there is very little excuse for these words remaining in the Bill, whether this Amendment were moved to-night or not.
There are 279 tramway undertakings in the country of which 96 percent, are electrified. That is an important point, which I shall show later in my speech. It shows that these undertakings are almost entirely modern. Taken all over, these undertakings are earning 7 percent, on their capital. They are excluded from the Bill.
There can be no confusion about that statement. It was made by the right hon. Gentleman during the first few minutes of his speech in moving the Second Reading of the Rill in this House. I listened to his speech carefully, and noted his words at the time. That I am not alone in that opinion is borne out by a leading article in the leading journal of this country which appeared the following morning. [An HON. MEMBER: "What journal?"] "The Times." A leading article in "The Times" on the day following the Debate in this House contained these words
Tramways —
Not municipal tramways, but tramways
which at first were placed in the Bill, are now excluded, for reasons which were not explained.
Before I proceed further, I should like to allude to a constitutional point. Is it within the power of a Committee upstairs to send back to this House a Bill with something in it which was specifically excluded by His Majesty's Minister in this House? It seems to me that it is impossible, but I should like your ruling whether that is so, assuming I am right in saying that tramways were excluded? I am quite satisfied that 279 represents the total tramway undertakings in the country. There are 171 municipal undertakings covering 1,800 miles of road, and 108 company undertakings, covering about 800 miles of road, making a total of 270tramway undertakings. And we have the definite word, which admits of no possible confusion, that
these 270 tramways were excluded from the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is probably reading his words at the moment. I heard them and know they are correctly reported. I should like to know if tramways are excluded or not, and I should like your ruling on the point.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: When the Minister made the speech referred to, the Bill was printed and in the hands of Members. We must go by the words of the Bill, and not by speeches.

Mr. BALFOUR: That being so, I must say one or two more words. It is not my desire to speak at length, or in the slightest degree to obstruct the business of the House. On other grounds, even if tramways were not excluded from the Bill on Second Reading, what is going to be done by retaining tramways in the Bill? If I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright, he claims as the greatest merit of this Bill that it is going to coordinate the transport system of the country. How is he going to co-ordinate the tramways? Of the 279 tramways, 171 municipal undertakings are excluded from any possibility of co-ordination, and it leaves the right hon. Gentleman a miserable 100 tramway systems, covering 800 miles of road, and he is going to co-ordinate them with what? Tramways, if I know anything about them, and I think I can claim some experience, in their very essence are local institutions. They cannot be co-ordinated into any part of a great national transport system. There is no excuse for retaining these essentially local undertakings in this Bill. I ask the right hon. Gentleman just to cast his mind over the average tramway system in this country. What is the longest distance any passenger travels on a tramway? In my experience of the tramway systems of England, Scotland, and Wales, roughly ten miles is the maximum. Occasionally you get a system somewhat longer than, that, but very seldom. This is what is going to be co-ordinated ! If the powers and duties of the Minister are to be restricted to the powers mentioned in the Command Paper, then I have no objection. I think it is right and wise to transfer all matters relating to tramways to a Minister who has control of other transport systems, but not to let him for a period of two years take possession of these tramways, and at the end of those two years hand them back in any state he thinks fit. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to make an Amendment
either at this point or a subsequent state to take over all the executive functions of existing Government Departments in that respect, I have no objection, but if it goes beyond that I would desire to see the word "tramways" deleted from Clause 2.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I must say I think that the Minister-designate will have his work well cut out without having tramways on his very able hands. I believe that the tramways of the country are well administered, and they might well be left out of this Bill. It will only, I believe, mean too much interference with local authorities, and I feel that it is a game—if I may use the expression—not worth the candle.

Sir E. GEDDES: You have ruled that we will go by what was printed in the Bill before the House on. Second Reading. Looking very briefly at what I said, although I admit that the wording—when one rereads one's speeches, or possibly those of other Members, they are not always clear—but I think there the reference was intended to be made that the municipal tramways were in a special category and possession would not be taken of them under the Bill. I think it would be a great mistake, in setting up a Ministry of Transportation, to leave tramways out. Tramways and light railways have an almost indefinable borderline. There are tramways worked as light railways, and in setting up a Ministry, which is to co-ordinate the transportation of the country, it would be, I think the House will agree, a fatal blot to leave out this very important, and increasingly important, method of transport along our roads, and I hope eventually through the country. Tramways and motor transport on roads are the two ways which will most readily, and with the least expenditure, be adopted to meet the needs not only of the agricultural community but of new housing schemes which will have to be brought into use. I feel very strongly that it would be a great blot to leave tramways out. In Committee Amendments were proposed, not by the Government, which were accepted by Committee and by the Government. Clause 4 of the Bill gives one of them. It gives the Minister power to require through-running on adjoining tramways. That appears to me, and the Committee thought it was a very important Amend-
ment. The reference to the prosperous state of electrified tramways was made by myself, as showing the great importance of electricity in a cheap, convenient, and expeditious transportation. Modern transportation of a frequent kind, and indeed of a heavy kind, would benefit largely by the proper application, not the wholesale, reckless application, of electrical power, and it was to illustrate that that I mentioned the prosperous state of those tramways. It is not intended to interfere in the way of taking possession, in its technical sense, of tramways owned and run by a municipal undertaking. The Bill shows that where the municipality possesses a right to purchase a tramway, even if the Minister has taken possession of it, when that right matures they will be able to purchase.

Mr. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman would say that when we come to Clause 3 he would make it clear that he does not intend to take possession he will meet my point.

Sir E. GEDDES: We are at present on Clause 2.

Mr. BALFOUR: But when we come to Clause 3 will you make it clear that you do not intend to take possession?

Sir E. GEDDES: I shall be very glad to consider what modification may be made in Clause 3. I think I cannot say anything more on this point, except that I feel very strongly that it would be a blot on the whole scheme to leave out this important matter of subsidiary transportation which we most require. To leave out tramways and light railways would be a hopeless blot on the Bill.

Mr. WATERSON: I feel generally bound to support the Minister in his appeal that this paragraph should remain in the Bill. I do not know that anyone in the House has ever said that the tramways are not well administered, but most of us who have had experience in these matters will agree that, although they may be well administered, there is little co-operation and co-ordination. The real object of the Bill, as I understand it, is to see that not merely in the railway industry and on the light railways should there be cooperation and co-ordination, but that this should obtain throughout the whole transport system. Those of us who happen to be fortunate or unfortunate enough to live in centres not blest with the best of railway services have to rely much upon our
trams. I could take many Members to a small tramway system, which does an extensive business, running from the city of Nottingham to Ripley more than a distance of ten miles. There is not that co-operation nor working in harmony with the train service at Nottingham that there should be. When passengers arrive at Nottingham they generally find that a tramcar has just gone, and they have to wait a considerable time, whereas the tramway arrangements should be such that passengers coming by train could catch a car and should not have to wait hours for the next one. What are required, and what it would be the duty of the Minister to ensure, are harmony and unity between the existing services, so that the transport system may be thoroughly effective. The question of through running is contained in this Clause, and if this Amendment is carried the Clause will be almost useless. The question is an exceedingly important one. I hope the Government will not waver on this matter, as they wavered at the beginning of the Sitting to-day, but will see that this is retained in the Bill.
It has been said that the tramway system is a local institution, but I submit that is not merely local but national, and a feeding system for the national and larger transport systems of the country. Reference has been made to the excellent testimony which the "Times" gave. I think the Mover of the Amendment said that the "Times" supported an Amendment of this character. I want to point cut that another eloquent paper, not the "Times," referred to this.

Mr. BALFOUR: It was quite the re-terse. I merely suggested that in their leading article the "Times" referred to the matter.

Mr. WATERSON: I thank the hon. Member for his correction. Not merely in the leading article of the "Times" has this question been referred to, but also in another paper which dealt with the matter at, almost the same time. I think this paper is read very much amongst the working classes of the community, and that they heartily support it. Seeing that the "Times" has been mentioned, I think it is quite in order to refer to the "Daily Herald."

Mr. STEVENS: I am in favour of tramways being included in the Bill. It is quite possible that the Government would care to approach the local authorities to
agree with them to include municipal tramways in the Bill, as I think they ought to be included. In regard to the working of the tramways by municipal authorities, and those owned by a company, the difficulty in nearly every case is the failure of the local authority to join up through the private tramways. I say very definitely that the Minister will get little or nothing out of the inclusion of the private tramways in the Bill unless he is able to enforce, as he is not now, means of inter-communication between the private tramways and the municipally-owned tramway.

Mr. KILEY: I join in the request to the right hon. Gentleman not to give way on the suggestion to omit tramways from the Bill. It is imperative that not only private but municipal lines should be included. In one district in London for the last five years there has been a dispute between the local and the county authorities as to whether the overhead or the conduit system should be adopted. The result has been that they have had no tramways there for the last five years because of that dispute. It is time some action should be taken to put a stop to a nuisance of that kind.

Mr. RAWLINSON: As far as I understand it the Bill includes tramways of all kinds—municipal as well as those of companies. The House and even the most intelligent of hon. Members are rather inclined to run away with the wrong idea. They have no grounds for saying that municipal tramways arc omitted from the Bill.

Mr. KILEY: The suggestion was made to the Minister that the tramways should be excluded.

Mr. RAWLINSON: The suggestion was not that they should be excluded. In the present state of the Bill all tramways are included, but the Minister has given a pledge that he will not take possession of municipal tramways.

Sir E. GEDDES: If my hon. and learned Friend will look at Section 3, Sub-section (1, b), he will see where the tramways belonging to a local authority are excluded.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Excluded from being taken possession of, but not for any other purpose. The point was made a short time ago in connection with inter-running. The present Minister has full power in regard to this under Section 4. Therefore
he has complete power to do what he wants, namely, run private stock on municipal tramlines and vice versâ, by making orders to that effect. I wanted to get from him this. He is not going to take possession of municipal trams. Does he intend to take possession of company-owned trams, and, if so, what for? He has stated that he does not mean to take possession of municipal tramways. I should like to know one way or the other about these tramway companies. Of course, it may be necessary to put it in the Bill without any qualification. If not, could he put in some qualification. It is a very big matter to give orders to thoroughly experienced tramway officials.

Sir E. GEDDES: We are dealing with Clause 2 of the Bill, which transfers certain duties and powers of other Departments, to be notified by Order in Council, and in relation to tramways of all kinds it is proposed that they should be transferred. I do not know if it is in order for me to deal with what is in Clause 3—

Mr. HOHLER: On a point of Order. Have not all these speeches been out of order? We arc simply on the question of the transfer of these general powers.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think it is clear that questions of running, for instance, do come under the covering powers taken here in Clause 2, although they are detailed in later Clauses, that is, brought in for purposes other than those provided for by clause 2.

Mr. HOHLER: May I call attention to Clause 4, which deals specifically with this question? Clause 2 merely transfers existing powers of Government Departments in regard to tramways; it has nothing to do with inter-running powers. In Clause 3 tramways arc dealt with, but municipal tramways are excluded; but in Clause 4 there is specific reference to inter-communication, and surely that would be the proper Clause under which to deal with a question of this kind.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is something in what the hon. Member says. The powers taken under Clause 2 are, I presume, the powers exercised by the Board of Trade, which has certain powers when application is made by Provisional Order for dealing with such matters. I think that probably the House will be satisfied now to proceed.

Amendment negatived.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
In the case of a draft of an Order in Council proposed to be made under Section two, Subsection (1), of this Act. the Order shall not be made until both Houses of Parliament by resolution have approved the draft, nor, if any modifications are agreed to by both Houses, otherwise than as so modified, and in the case of a draft of an Order proposed to be made under Section two, Sub-section (2) of this Act if either House, before the expiration of thirty days during which the House is sitting after the draft of the Order has been laid before that House, presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new draft Order.
This is the second part of the new Clause which stood in my name on the Order Paper and which by direction of Mr. Speaker I put down as an Amendment to Clause 2.

Captain H. BENN: On a point of Order. May I ask where it is proposed that this-shall be put in? I have an Amendment at the end of paragraph (iii.) of Sub-section (1).

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member for Greenwich does come first. I called him, but did not see him rise. He is entitled to move.

Captain H. BENN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, iii.), to insert the words
Nothing in this Section shall transfer to the Minister the powers or duties of any Government Department in relation to foreshore, navigation, pilotage, wreck and salvage. lighthouses, and shipping.
The Home Secretary. in Committee, expressly stated that the Government did not intend to take these powers. He raised objection to having them taken out of the Bill, but at the same time gave us a definite assurance that the Government had no intention of taking them. That being the case, I do not see how this Amendment can be resisted.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir E. GEDDES: The White Paper which has been circulated relating to the-transference of powers shows what it is intended at the present time to take from the Board of Trade and other Departments in connection with the rivers and waterways in this country. This Amendment selects one particular class of power and defines what the Minister shall and shall not take. It is not intended to go beyond.
the powers which are essential to maintain the transport facilities which we obtain from the use of these waterways, nor to infringe any powers that are of a different character altogether. At the same time it is very difficult now to see exactly how far it may be necessary to go in the transfer, or even the adjustment of the transfer, of the powers, and what powers we shall have to take and what we shall have to leave. It is one of the most confusing items we shall have to deal with, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press the Amendment, but will leave it as all the other powers are left, namely, that the transfer of powers shall be arranged as we get experience of the work. If now it is laid down that these particular powers are not to be transferred it may restrict us at a future date. I am sure he does not wish, now that we have settled the rather vexed question of the docks, to impose what will really be a restriction of the general work of adjustment between the Departments, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

Captain H. BENN: The point is not about inland navigation or powers connected with that, but really the powers in relation to outer navigation, pilotage and lighthouses.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he is really thinking in his own mind on this matter? Is he thinking of taking over questions like pilotage, lighthouses, etc.? He is having powers transferred to him at present existing in different Government Departments about which there is no doubt; but does he mean also that he proposes to take over, say, the powers of Trinity House with regard to a lighthouse which is upon a dock? That has nothing to do with the transport of the country. Similarly, there is the case of the foreshore which may adjoin a dock or the entrance to a dock. These are powers which belong to the Ministry of Shipping if to anyone, and certainly cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered, either now or at any future time, to be associated with the powers of inland transport which are being taken over by the right hon. Gentleman. He can relieve the anxiety of my hon. Friend and others who are connected with the shipping if he can say that in no way does he want to take over the foreshore, navigation, lighthouses, shipping, and pilotage. I am quite sure the House never thought
that there was any intention in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, or the Government either, now or at any future time, to claim the powers I have indicated.

Mr. HOHLER: My hon. and learned Friend and others seem to be dragging into this Bill what is not there. A fore-shore is the property of the town, to give one instance. My hon. and learned Friend should give some justification by argument to show that the Clause to which they are referring really does enable the Minister of Ways and Commnunications to do what they suggest he may do. There is nothing in the Bill to justify their observations. But a Clause may be amended so as to be of ambiguous interpretation. It may come before the Courts. Then the Courts may say, "If Parliament has been so foolish as to introduce a Clause which was never intended to be in the Bill there surely must be some meaning in it." So some ingenious lawyer carries it forward to the House of Lords, and the thing is rendered more ridiculous still.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will my hon. and learned Friend say that he has never heard of a lighthouse at the end of a pier.

Mr. HOHLER: It my hon. and learned Friend asks me that question really he must think that I am exceedingly foolish.

Dr. MURRAY: I hope the Minister will not give way. 1 could hope that he will be even more greedy for power than the hon. Gentleman wishes, because shipping is the most important part of transport in parts of the country. On the West Coast of Scotland, at any rate, private enterprise has failed, and I hope the Government will take it over, and run the shipping for the benefit of the people. The transport service to which I refer is one of the most important items of reconstruction. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take it into his Bill if it is not already there.

Sir E. GEDDES: There is, of course, nothing in the Bill which gives any Minister power to take over the shipping, or pilotage, or anything of that kind as the hon. and learned Gentleman on this side has just said. On page 6 of the White Paper, in that portion which refers to harbours, docks, and piers, I would like to read just two examples of the difficulties which I have mentioned. After showing those difficulties, I hope this Amendment will not be pressed.
Power to hold inquiries as to applications to Parliament for authority to construct work on or.
across any navigable river or which will affect any harbour and to require the deposit of further explanatory documents it necessary"—
That has to do with channels. Then again—
approval of pier and harbour works authorised by provisional Order confirmed by Parliament, power to repair, restore or remove any such work which may have been abandoned or become disused; power to examine such work at the expense of the owners.
In these cases the Board of Trade will retain these powers so far as they affect navigation. It is extremely difficult at this stage definitely to say that certain things shall or shall not be included, but it is not intended to take over anything that has to do with pilotage or shipping. To lay down, however, in any particular Clause powers in relation to some things which are on the border-line, and say that they shall or shall not come in, would, 1 think, be unduly hampering us. I think the House should leave the matter to the Departments and the Government to adjust them and see how the thing works out

Sir F. FLANNERY: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. He is unduly cautious in his desire to make more provision against the impossible than is at all necessary. There are no powers, as has been pointed out, in the Bill that necessitate any one of these precautions included in this Amendment. There being no such powers in the Bill, what on earth is the object of saying that they shall not be exercised, or that they shall not exist? It is a double negative, so to speak. The danger has been pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Holder), that if amended something may be read into such Amendment far more than my hon. and learned Friend expects or intends. Embarrassment and perhaps difficulties in the Law Courts would be caused by this tautology and this unnecessary expression of precaution against something which does not even, as the right hon. Gentleman admits, exist in the Bill. I sincerely hope the Amendment will not be pressed, for it is quite useless, and may be very dangerous, and lead to complications.

Captain H. BENN: After the declaration of the Minister on the subject I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I would just wish to add that the powers in question do come under the purview of the Minister as the Bill is drawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
Provided that in the case of a draft of an. Order in Council proposed to be made under Section two, Sub-section (1). of this Act the Order shall not be made until both Houses of Parliament by resolution have approved the draft, nor if any modifications are agreed to by both Houses otherwise than as so modified, and in the case of a draft of an Order proposed to be made under Section two, Sub-section (2). of this Act if either House, before the expiration of thirty days during which the House is sitting after the draft of the Order has been laid before that House, presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new draft Order.
This, Mr. Speaker, is part of the new Clause, which, you told me, I might move as an Amendment to Clause 2. It will be seen that this Amendment deals with two parts of Clause 2. There is not anybody in the House who can prophesy what on earth may not be done under the Section as it stands. w e may wake up one day and find that all sorts of powers have been transferred to the Minister of Ways and Communications, and two or three days afterwards we may find that a great part of those powers have been transferred to some other Departments. Although it is quite true we have agreed that the powers of the Board of Trade and certain other Departments shall be transferred to the Ministry, the House never understood, and I do not believe the-country ever understood, that such a sweeping arrangement could be made merely by an Order In Council, and done at any time when it suited the sweet will of one or two Ministers. I think one of the first duties of this House is to preserve the powers with which it has been endowed for many centuries, and all these Orders in Council ought to be checked and known to the House. How will the public know to which Department they ought to refer if they have a grievance? They may be told by one Department that by an Order in Council we had that particular power, but it has been retransferred by another Order in Council made the day before yesterday, and therefore we must put up with all the bother and trouble and expense you have been put to on the advice of some person learned in the law, like my hon. Friend near me. All I ask is that these Orders in Council shall be laid on the Table of the House. It is really a very simple request, and the House must not forget that we are dealing with questions
which five years ago we should never have allowed any Minister or any Government to deal with. We are dealing with most important questions which are touching the life blood of the commercial part of this country. It may be that we have to wait for thirty days before we can carry out these various Orders, but that is not an argument at all. It is absolutely necessary, in the interests of the country, that people should know where they are. That deals with the first part of my modest Amendment. The second part deals with Sub-section (2) and provides that the draft shall be laid on the Table. Sub-section (2) of the Bill provides as follows:
(2) His Majesty in Council may by Order make such incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving full effect to any transfer of powers or duties by or under this Section, including provisions for the transfer of any property, rights and liabilities held, enjoyed, or incurred by any Government Department in connection with any powers or duties transferred.
Here, again, we are going to give powers to the Government to make by Order in Council all those provisions which I have read out which may mean anything or nothing. If they are going to take the enormous powers given under this Bill, it may be impossible to say what it is they are going to do. I think it is a modest request to ask that when the Government have made up their minds they should inform the House what they are going to do, and if the House during thirty days wishes to make any objection the Government should listen to what hon. Members may have to say.

Mr. SHORTT: May I remind the House what Clause 2 of the Bill does? Anyone who has listened to my right hon. Friend will have supposed that the Order in Council transferred various powers to the Ministry, but no such thing is the case. This House when passing Clause 2 transferred to the Minister the whole of the powers of the various Departments there enumerated. Take, for example, the Board of Trade or any other Department. The whole of their powers are transferred to the Minister by Clause 2, and the only object of the Order in Council is, first of all, to fix the date at which any particular powers shall be transferred. They have already been transferred by this House, and the Order in Council fixes the date when such transfer shall take place. In the second place, Sub-section (2) pro-
vides that where anything is necessary to be done to make the transfer complete that also is done by Order in Council, and it is safeguarded by words that nothing should be done under that Sub-section which would increase the powers of a new Minister over the powers which the old Minister possessed, so that you cannot give to the new Minister any greater powers than the old Department possessed, and all the Orders in Council do is to carry out by fixing a date what this House has already determined. The House has decided already that these powers are to be transferred. Just consider what would happen. In the first place, this House has decided that certain powers are to be transferred to the new Minister. Then you want an Order in Council to fix a date, and before you can do what this House has said you can do, you are to come again to the House to put the Order in Council on the Table, to get a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament, and to do what you say you are carrying out— something which this House has said must be done at some time; or if something is necessary to be done—some supplementary provision required which does not increase the powers one iota. Again, when you fix a date and decide what it is necessary to do, that has to lie on the Table of the House for thirty days. Supposing, for example, this Bill goes through before the end of this Session, as I hope it will, the Royal Assent is given, and the House adjourns, and the Minister wants to get to work, and ho says, "I want to have transferred to me at the end of August or at the end of September the powers necessary for me to get to work;" it cannot be done. We should all have to go back from holidays or he would have to wait until the House reassembled in order that a draft might be laid on the Table, and you would have to get two residents—one in this House and one in another place—to say that in September the Minister may be allowed to do that which Parliament had already said, months before, he was to do. I hope the House, therefore, will not pass the Amendment. It is absolutely useless. It would block the Minister. It is not giving the House the protection the House would require.

Lord HUGH CECIL: My hon. Friend does not say correctly what was formerly done, to say these powers are transferred, and to make only the date of their transference depend on the Order in Council-
If my right hon. Friend behind me—if his Amendment was adopted, what would really be done would be to give Parliament an effective control, not merely over the date of transference, but over the powers in detail as they were propounded by the Minister. This Clause is in most general terms. My right hon. Friend says that Parliament has decided to transfer— that is to say, general words propounded by the Government have not been dissented from by the House. I venture to say there is not one Member in the House who knows all the powers to be transferred under the Clause. No real assent of Parliament, detail by detail, is referred to in this Clause. My Friend's Amendment is really one of substance. It enables Parliament to prevent the transference of any particular power which it seemed desirable to prevent the Minister having. 1 distrust profoundly an irresponsible bureaucracy—a Minister who can do anything he likes, knowing that he cannot be called to account. I think a Minister would always be willing to postpone the asumption of official duties during the holidays in August and September, and to leave them until Parliament is sitting. I think Parliament should have an effective control over the Government. The words my hon. Friend has called attention to which gives the Order in Council power to transfer such supplementary powers are exceedingly wise. No doubt, it says in a proviso, that nothing therein contained shall enable the powers so transferred to be increased, but he has to decide whether they are increased or not. What remedy is there if they axe increased? Supposing the Government says, the powers are not increased, who is going to say they are wrong? The Government will naturally make up their minds what powers and what date they do intend to transfer the powers. It is an exceedingly good thing that the subordinates of the Government are under Parliamentary control, and that they cannot ask for a more than reasonable intention of Parliament to give them. I press this Amendment on the House because it really embodies the principle of Parliamentary control over the bureaucracy. With the vastly increasing powers of the Government it is very desirable to have this control so that Parliament may remain sovereign in this country and that the power shall not rest in the hands of any particular Minister.

Mr. WATERSON: I have not always found myself in accord with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) although I did stand loyally by him in connection with a little measure he tried to get through the House a few days ago. But I am afraid I shall have to disagree with him now. If he had sought to provide that all Orders in Council should be laid on the Table of the House before being put into operation we might have guaranteed him some support from these benches.

Sir F. BANBURY: I shall be quite willing to do that. I have always contended for it.

Mr. WATERSON: The right hon. Gentleman said he was introducing this Clause in the interests of the commercial life of this country. I do not dispute that for one moment, but I want to suggest there have been other measures which have been of great interest to the people of this country and which have been greatly detrimental to the working classes but yet no attempt has been made to insert any such provision as this. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, we contend that all Orders in Council should be laid on the Table before becoming operative, and then we shall be able to do as suggested by the Noble Lord—give Parliament supreme control in all these matters. As far as we are concerned, we must be consistent and vote against an Amendment of this description until the Government can be induced to agree that all Orders in Council shall be laid, irrespective of the reasons for which they are issued.

Mr. HOHLER: My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will not complain, I think, when I express my opinion that these Amendments are wholly obstructive. To begin with, the first proposal simply asks for powers which already are in existence under the Statute. The second Section simply contains a proviso giving power by Order in Council to exempt certain existing powers which otherwise would be transferred. My right hon. Friend raised a point with regard to the difficulty of dealing with the Department which makes the. Order in Council, but he has simply to write a letter to the Department asking under what powers it has issued the Order in Council. Therefore all you have is a transfer of
existing powers. It creates no new powers under the Section. Then you have by way of proviso an exception that by Order in Council you may except appropriate powers, for instance, to the Admiralty, with respect to dockyard ports. Now we come to Sub-section (2). That is perfectly simple. When you are transferring these powers supplemental provisions may be made in regard to property which you are transferring. You will relieve the Admiralty of that which should properly belong to the Admiralty and which is necessary for the work it has in hand; but, on the other hand, you transfer to the Ministry these other properties but proceedings may be taken against the Minister. Arguments have been advanced against the Clause, which creates no new powers, and the Order in Council, which is simply to put in order that which is necessary in regard to the transfer, and what they really mean is that the Bill shall never come into existence at all.

Sir C. WARNER: I think there is a precedent for this. This House is very much against legislation by Order in Council and so expressed itself some time ago. Shortly afterwards, the Ministry of Health Bill being in Committee upstairs, we pressed this very point. It was not because it was a single instance, but because we thought it was wrong that legislation should be done by Order in Council, and in that particular case, which has been followed in other Bills, it was a question of fighting for various powers from various Departments to the new Ministry of Health, exactly the same thing as this is, and almost these very words were used and incorporated in the Bill, and they have been carried in this House. I should be sorry to see anything that delayed the carrying out of this Bill, because I believe it is essential that the Transport Bill should be made efficient and carried into law as soon as possible. But I do not think the Home Secretary is quite correct in his view that it is delaying it so much. I believe there would not be very much delay, and I think it is rather important that there should be as little legislation by Order in Council as possible, and I think the hon. Baronet is quite right in introducing this, and that there is actual precedent for it and it was understood then, and I think in several cases afterwards that when these Orders in Council were introduced into a
Bill with a similar purpose there should always be a Clause of this kind and the House should approve of it.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I am in sympathy with the observations of the hon. Baronet when he says there ought not to be legislation by Orders in Council. However in this case I do not think there is any suggestion at all that there should be legislation by Order in Council. As a mere matter of common sense in draughtsmanship I do not know why those responsible for this measure have ever put forth the suggestion that things that are merely incidental, consequential and supplementary to the provisions of this measure should be subjected even to the process of an Order in Council. If that Clause had been left out it would have followed automatically that the responsible Minister could have made orders that were merely incidental, consequential, and supplemental to the provision, and did not go beyond it, in the ordinary way, without anybody having any justification for protesting. The Government, in their anxiety to meet the opposition of interests, thought they would take a half-way course, and would meet them by suggesting that even in carrying out these incidental, consequential, and merely supplemental provisions, the matter should undergo the advisory process of being laid before the Council, and an Order should be made thereon. I express the profound hope that the Government will not budge a single inch towards this Amendment, but that they will go boldly forward. If the House is willing, as apparently it is, to confer upon them larger powers, the House will take the view that it is a mistake in policy, and only means a waste of time and a good deal of anxiety and dangerous agitation outside if, having conferred upon the Ministry large and comprehensive powers, the Ministry is held up by petifogging questions of detail such as are contemplated in this Clause.

Mr. NEAL: With everything that has been said by the right hon. Baronet in point of principle I find myself in agreement, but as I read this Clause to carry the Amendment would prevent the commencement of the operations of the Ministry for an indefinite period. I do not read this Clause precisely in the same way as the Home Secretary. Therefore, I think it right to put my view before the
House. Clause 2 is a corollary to Clause 1. Clause 1 refers to the purposes for which the Ministry is determined. Clause 2 puts upon the Ministry the duty in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties transferred to or conferred upon him under the Act, to take steps to carry out the purposes aforesaid, the purposes aforesaid being to improve the means and facilities for locomotion. Then it goes on to say
and there shall, as from such date or dates as His Majesty in Council may by Older determine, be transferred to the Minister all powers and duties of any Government Department in relation to"—
certain matters, which are specified. As I read that, no power whatever is vested in the Minister by way of transfer under j this Act. He only obtains his powers by Order in Council as from the date named in the Order in Council. If I am correct it follows that he would have no transferred powers at all until the Orders in Council have been laid on the Tables of both Houses and dealt with in the manner suggested by the right hon. Baronet. The effect of that would be disastrous. It would postpone the commencement of the operations of the Ministry to an indefinite period Notwithstanding that, if this Clause purported to give the Government power to enlarge their own powers by Order in Council, I would vote with the right hon. Baronet, but seeing that the object of the Clause is simply to fix up the machinery of transference as between different Government Departments, I find myself quite unable to do so. The provisions of this Clause are merely incidental provisions. The provision in para. (i) of Sub-section (1) is that an Order in Council may exempt from the general powers transferred particular powers or duties. In para. (ii) there is special reference to Admiralty powers, and in para. (iii). special reference to powers of the Board of Trade. Though the House would be pretty unanimous in the determination not to allow any Government to legislate for itself behind the back of Parliament, I sincerely hope that this Amendment will not be accepted.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out to my hon. and learned Friend that my Amendment will in no way delay the real objects of this Bill. This Bill is divided into two parts. The first part transfers the powers of certain bodies to the new Ministry. The second part, which is the more important part of the Bill, gives
power to the Ministry to take over railways, docks, etc., as modified by the Clause which is passed now. Therefore, if my Amendment were carried the greater part of the Bill would be unaffected. All that would be touched would be the transference of powers which are in existence at the present time. What my Amendment would do would be to delay the transfer not of powers necessary for carrying out the objects of the Bill, but of certain powers now exercised by the Board of Trade. Assuming this Bill becomes law, if it becomes law within a reasonable time, in all probability there will be time to lay these Orders in Council on the Table before we have risen. Supposing that that is not so, and that the Bill does not become law until the middle of August, and that we had risen then, the effective part of the Bill would go on, but the Board of Trade would continue to administer the powers which it administers now, instead of handing them over to the right hon. Gentleman. The Board of Trade has been administering them for many years. Why should it not go on doing so for another six weeks—because that is all that it amounts to. If we adjourn in the middle of August we will probably come back in October, and it will merely mean that the right hon. Gentleman would have to wait five or six weeks before the powers of the Board of Trade were put into his hands. One Department of the Government I presume is as good as the other. Therefore, why for a few weeks longer the existing President of the Board of Trade should not continue to carry out his functions I fail to see. And I had forgotten to say that it is all in the family. The President of the Board of Trade is the right hon. Gentleman's own brother. They are the superior people who have been brought in to show us old Members of Parliament, who have been here for twenty-seven years, how foolish we are and what a great deal we have to learn. Therefore no harm whatever would result; quite the contrary. I think that the fraternal observations exchanged between the two brothers carrying on these various operations would be most excellent.
I earnestly hope that the House will insist on this Amendment. I have ventured to show quite seriously that while no harm. will result from the passing of the Amendment, we do preserve to ourselves, at any rate in theory,—and it is something to preserve to ourselves in theory—the right that this House has exercised from time imme-
morial. We shall still be nominally the masters instead of the servants of the Government, and that is rather a good thing, especially at the present moment. If the hon. Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) considers that the matter is of sufficient importance to go to a Division I shall certainly divide upon it.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I wish in a few words to support the Amendment. I think it is the common view of most people outside the House, if not recognised by all hon. Members, that gradually the control of this House over its Ministers is slipping away. As a very young Member of this

House I say, with proper modesty, but none the less with emphasis, that it is time the young Members asserted on every possible occasion that it is necessary to regain that control. I hold that view so strongly that I would certainly urge the Mover of the Amendment to divide the House on this question, so that we may show who are those Members who stand for proper control.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 64; Noes, 215.

Division No. 54.]
AYES.
[10.39 p.m.


Armitage, Robert
Hayward, Major Evan
Rae, H. Norman


Astbury, Lt.-Com. F. W.
Henderson, Major V. L,
Raeburn, Sir William


Atkey, A. R.
Hilder, Lieutenant-Colonel F.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Home, Edgar (Guildford)
Remer, J. B.


Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-
Howard, Major S. G.
Renwick, G.


Boll, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)


Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)
Johnstone, J.
Shaw, captain W. T. (Forfar)


Bigland, Alfred
Joynson-Hicks, William
Stevens, Marshall


Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.
Knights, Capt. H.
Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.


Bowyer, Captain G, W. E.
Larmor, Sir J.
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Briant, F.
Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Lorden, John William
Tryon, Major George Clement


Campbell, J. G. D.
Lort-Williams, J.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)
Meysey-Thompsan, Lt.-Col. E. C.
Weston, Col. John W.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Williams, A. (Conset, Durham)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
Murray, John (Leeds, W.)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)
Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud


Foxcroft, Capt. Charles Talbot
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Glanville, Harold James
Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)



Gould, J. C.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Prescott, Major W. H.
Banbury and Mr. Marriott,


Hambro, Angus Valdemar




NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Clough, R.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Gilbert, James Daniel


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Glyn, Major R.


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Green, J. F. (Leicester)


Arnold, Sydney
Coote, William (Tyrone, S.)
Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)


Austin, Sir H.
Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Grundy, T. W.


Baird, John Lawrence
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughboro')


Baldwin, Stanley
Courthope, Major George Loyd
Hallwood, A.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)


Barnett, Captain Richard W.
Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Hartshorn, V.


Barnston, Major Harry
Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry
Hayday, A.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Hinds John


Bennett, T. J.
Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.


Birchall, Major J. D.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Blades, Sir George R.
Dawes, J. A.
Holmes, J. S.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Hood, Joseph


Borwick, Major G. O.
Edge, Captain William
Hope, Harry (Stirling)


Bowerman, Right Hon. C. W.
Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)'


Brackenbury, Col. H. L.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hope, John Deans (Berwick)


Breese, Major C. E.
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)


Britton, G. B.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Hopkinson, Dr. E. (Clayton)


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Fell, Sir Arthur
Hudson, R. M.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G


Burn, T, H. (Belfast)
Foreman, H.
Hurd, P. A.


Campion, Col. W. R.
Forestler-Walker, L.
Hurst, Major G. B.


Cape, Tom
Gange, E. S.
Jephcott, A. R.


Carr, W. T.
Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
Jodrell, N. P.


Casey, T. W.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C (Basingstoke)
Johnson, L. S.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville


Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Stephenson, Col. H. K.


Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Perring, William George
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Kellaway, Frederick George
Pinkham, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles
Sturrock, J. Leng-


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Sugden, W. H.


King, Com. Douglas
Pratt, John William
Sutherland, Sir William


Knight, Capt. E. A.
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Swan, J. E. C.


Lambert, Rt. Hen. George
Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)


Lane-Fox, Major G. R.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)
Thomson, P. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Lunn, William
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)
Tootill, Robert


Lynn, R. J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Townley, Maximillian G


McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Macquisten, F. A.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Waddington, R.


Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lanes.)
Walker, Col. William Hall


Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S)
Rodger, A. K.
Wallace, J.


Mason, Robert
Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Middlebrook, Sir William
Royce, William Stapleton
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Mitchell, William Lane-
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Waring, Major Walter


Moles, Thomas
Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)
Waterson, A. E.


Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Morgan, Major D. Watts
Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.
Whitla, Sir William


Mosley, Oswald
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)
Wignall, James


Mount, William Arthur
Seager, Sir William
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Murchison, C. K.
Seddon, J. A.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir Rhys (Banbury)


Murray, William (Dumfries)
Sexton, James
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)


Nall, Major Joseph
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Neal, Arthur
Shaw, Tom (Preston)
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Newbould, A. E.
Short, A. (Wednesbury)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Nield, Sir Herbert
Sitch, C. H.
Woolcock, W. J. U.


O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Worsfold, T. Cato


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Parker, James
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)



Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Spoor, B. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Capt


Parry, Major Thomas Henry
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
F. Guest and Lord E, Talbot.


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike




Question put, and agreed to.

Sir E. GEDDES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Act" ["after the passing of this Act"], to insert the words
or where as respects any particular provisions a longer period is expressly provided, for such longer period.
This provision is merely for the purpose of giving effect to paragraph (e) of Sub-section (1), and if this is passed when we come to it, it enables the period to run for the additional eighteen months provided under paragraph (e). It is really -only a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: The following Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Macclesfield, is out of order, as it imposes a charge.
In Sub-section 1 (a), to leave out the words, "upon the same terms as to payment as those heretofore in force," and to insert instead thereof the words
upon the terms of payment to the railway companies of any deficit on their profit and loss account, providing that deficit does not exceed sixty million sterling, such deficit to be certified by a chartered accountant in the Treasury employ.

Mr. REMER: May I point out that the Bill as it stands specifies the terms of
payment as those heretofore in force, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge, in the Second Reading, stated that the amount would be £100,000,000. This Amendment reduces that to £60,000,000.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is problematical; it may or it may not. If the amount should be greater it would impose a charge, but no power on earth can say whether it will be greater or not.

Major BARNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (1) (a), to leave out the word "payment" [''terms as to payment"], and to insert instead thereof the word "compensation."
I have two Amendments down, which are consequential, and I am anxious to save time by making my remarks on them when moving the first. This Amendment removes the Debate from the vexed question of the powers of the Minister to the, perhaps, equally interesting question, what the exercise of those powers will cost the country. The House will see that under Clause 3 (Sub-section (1) (a) and (b) the railways of this country are classified into two categories. Under Subsection (1) (a) you have those railways which were taken over at the commencement of the War under Section 16 of
the Regulation of the Forces, Act, 1871. Under Sub-section (1) (b) you have those railways which will be taken possession of by the right hon. Gentleman under this Bill. With regard to the second class of railways, the question of compensation for these comes entirely under Clause 7, but in regard to the first class of railways, those taken possession of at the commencement of the war, the question of compensation for these comes, not only under Clause 7, but under Sub-section (1) (a) of Clause 3. The object of the Amendment is to bring the whole question of compensation for the railways taken over at the commencement of the War under this present Sub-section. The words affected are as follows, and read that these undertakings arc to be retained
upon the same terms as to payment as those heretofore in force.
The Amendment I desire to move is that the word "payment" be left out and the word "compensation" be inserted. I do that because the terms that were arranged were terms not of payment, but terms of full compensation. May I road to the House the terms under which these railways were taken possession of?
There shall be paid to any person or body of persons whose railroad or plant may be taken possession of in pursuance of this Section, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, such full compensation"—
I would ask the House to take account of those words "full compensation," so that if these railways are to be retained under the terms of that agreement then those terms carried with them full compensation, and there is no reason at all why any question of compensation for these undertakings should arise under Clause 7.
It might be asked, "How it is that in the first place, the railways are separated into these different classifications? Why are not all the railways treated alike?" The answer to that, I suppose, would be that the Government are under a guarantee to the railroad undertakings, which have already been taken over, to continue for the next two years the terms under which these railways are at present held. In the first place, the effect of Clause 3 is to continue that guarantee, not for three years, but it may be for the full term for which the period of compensation may be extended—namely, three and a half years. It may be assumed that the railway companies would not be asked for this guarantee to be extended over the two years if they were not satisfied with
the position as it stands. And, seeing that those terms give them what they had agreed to accept as full compensation, it is not easy to see why there should be any effort made in this Bill to extend that compensation so as to bring them under Clause 7. Might I draw the attention of the House first to the agreement made with the railway companies at the beginning of the War? Members probably have received the White Paper 147 of 1919, which sets forth the cost of working the railways of Great Britain during the period of Government control. It will be remembered that the agreement, between the Board of Trade and the railways was based upon a recommendation of the Railway Executive. That recommendation was as follows—I read from an extract taken from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee which considered this Bill, and which appears there in one of the speeches made by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). The agreement was arrived at a meeting of the Executive Committee held on 6th August, 1914. This is an extract from the Minutes:
The question of the basis on which compensation under the Act of 1871 should be ascertained was discussed and
It was resolved to recommend that to ascertain the compensation payable the aggregate net receipts of all the railways taken over during the period for which they are taken over shall be compared with a similar aggregate for the corresponding period of the previous year. The ascertained deficiency shall be the amount of compensation due. Provided that if the aggregate net receipts for the first half of the year 1914 are less than the aggregate net receipts for the first half of the year 1913, the ascertained deficiency shall be reduced in the like proportion.
Any question as to the amount of the deficiency shall, in default of agreement, be determined by the Rail way and Canal Commission.
The sum so payable as compensation. together with the net receipts of the railways taken over, shall be distributed among the railway companies in proportion to the net receipts of each company during the period with which comparison is made.
That was a recommendation made by the Railway Executive on 6th August, 1914, to the then Government, and an agreement was come to between the Government and the railway companies, and that was announced in the "Times" on 6th September, 1914, in these words:
His Majesty's Government have agreed with the railway companies concerned that, subject to the undermentioned condition, the compensation to be paid over shall be the same by which the aggregate net receipts of these railways for
the period during which the Government are in possession of them falls short of the aggregate net receipts for the corresponding period of 1913.
These are the terms of the full compensation to be paid, and the object of my Amendment is to secure—

It being Eleven of the Clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY [MONEY].

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law with respect to the supply of electricity, it is expedient—
(a) to authorise the Treasury to advance out of the Consolidated Fund such sums not exceeding in the aggregate twenty million pounds as may be required in connection with the construction of interim works, and to borrow money by means of Exchequer bonds for the issue of such sums or tile repayment thereof; the principal of and interest on such bonds to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund;
(b) to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the interest on stock issued under the powers of such Act by the Electricity Commissioners appointed there under up to an amount not exceeding twenty-five million pounds, and the charge on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required for fulfilling such guarantee;
(c) to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for five years after the passing of such Act by way of advance of any excess of the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners over their receipts."

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am not sure whether, under the now Rules of the House, it is possible to object to this Resolution being taken after eleven o'clock. If they do not alter the procedure, I beg to object.

Mr. SPEAKER: No objection is valid.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — LORD FRENCH'S BOOK.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. HOLMES: I desire to call the attention of the House to the attack made by Lord French upon Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien in his book, 1914, and to the refusal of the Army Council to allow the latter to reply.
In the first official despatch Lord (then Sir John) French, stated that "the concentration of the British Expeditionary Force was completed on 21st August, when our troops took up their position on the Mons-Condé line. On 23rd August they received the first attack, and that evening they commenced to retreat, and by the night of the 24th readied the Maubeuge line. The next morning, the 25th, the retreat was continued to the Le Cateau line, which was reached about six p.m. by the Second Army Corps, under the command of Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien."
It should be remembered that Sir Horace was not originally in command of the Second Army Corps. When the Expeditionary Force left England, Sir James Grierson was its commander, but he died in the train on his way to his corps headquarters. Lord French's book says:
His place was taken by Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien, although I asked that Sir Herbert Plumer might be sent out to me to succeed Grierson in command of the 2nd Corps. As a matter of fact, the question of Sir James Grier-son's successor was not referred to me at all. The appointment was made at home. Although I knew Sir Horace to be a soldier who had done good service and possessed a fine record, I had asked for Sir Herbert Plumer because I felt-he was the right man for this command.
As I have stated, the Second Army Corps under Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien had reached Le Cateau at 6 p.m. on the evening of 25th August. The Official Dispatch states:
At daybreak of the 26th it became apparent that the enemy was throwing the bulk of his strength against the left of the position occupied by the 2nd Corps and the 4th Division.
At the time the guns of four German Army Corps were in position against them, and Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien reported to me that he judged it impossible to continue his retirement at daybreak (as ordered) in face of such an attack.
I sent him orders to use his utmost endeavours to break off the action and retire at the earliest possible moment, as it was impossible for me to send him any support, the 1st Corps being at the moment incapable of movement.
There had been no time to entrench the position properly, but the troops showed a magnificent front to the terrible fire which confronted them.
The artillery, although outmatched by at least four to one, made a splendid fight, and inflicted heavy losses on their opponents.
At length it became apparent that, if complete annihilation was to be avoided, a retirement must be attempted; and the order was given to commence it about 3.30 p.m. The movement was covered with the most devoted intrepidity and determination by the Artillery, which had itself suffered heavily, and the fine work done by the Cavalry in the further retreat from the position assisted materially in the final completion of this most difficult and dangerous operation.
Fortunately the enemy had himself suffered too heavily to engage in an energetic pursuit.
I cannot close the brief account of this glorious stand of the British troops without putting on record my deep appreciation of the valuable services rendered by General Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien.
I say without hesitation that the saving of the left wing of the Army under my command on the morning of the 26th August could never have been accomplished unless a commander of rare and unusual coolness, intrepidity, and determination had been present to personally conduct the operations.
In a later despatch, dated 8th October, 1914, covering the operations to the end of September, Sir John French made the following statement:
I further wish to bring forward the names of the following officers who have rendered valuable service: General Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien and Lieutenant-General Sir Douglas Haig (commanding First and Second Corps respectively) whom I have already mentioned in the present and former despatches for particularly marked and distinguished service in critical situations.
Since the commencement of the campaign they have carried out all my orders and instructions with the utmost ability.
Such is the official Report made by Sir John French, as Commander-in-Chief. Let us now turn to the unofficial Report given by Lord French in his book. It agrees with the official Report to the time of 6 p.m. on 25th August, when the Second Army Corps reached Le Cateau. But in the book he withdraws his appreciation of Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien and accuses him of having jeopardised the whole retreat to the Marne by his decision to make a stand at Le Cateau. Let me quote from the book:
Colonel Ansell, commanding the 5th Dragoon Guards, one of the finest Cavalry leaders in the Army, who fell at the head of his regiment a few days later, gave information to General Allenby at about 2 a.m. on the 26th regarding the nature of the German advance. This seemed of such great importance that the latter at once sought out Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien and warned him that, unless he was prepared to continue his march at daybreak, he would most probably be pinned down to his position and would be unable to get away. Sir Horace asked General Allenby
what, in his opinion, were the chances he had if he remained and held the position, adding that he felt convinced his troops were so exhausted as to preclude the possibility of removing them for some hours to come. Allenby's reply was that he thought, unless the commander of the 2nd Corps made up his mind to move at daybreak, the enemy probably would succeed in surrounding him.
Nevertheless, Sir Horace determined to fight. As to this decision, a commander on the spot, and in close touch with his division and brigades, is in the best position to judge of what his men can do.
I had, late on the evening of the 25th, before leaving for my headquarters at St. Quentin, visited several units of the 2nd Corps in their bivouacs and, though tired indeed, they had not struck me as being worn-out troops.
By the break of day on the 2Gth, the 5th Division on the right had secured several hours' rest. The same may be said of the 8th and 9th Brigades, which came next in the lino. The 7th Brigade had only just arrived at cantonments at 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. on the 25th, after a heavy day's march and some severe fighting, but they could in such an emergency have marched at dawn. The 4th Division on the left of the 2nd Corps was comparatively fresh.
The enemy had hurried forward a large force of Artillery, composed of guns and howitzers of all calibres, escorted and protected by four Cavalry Divisions and a limited number of Jager battalions.
These troops were pushed forward against the 2nd Corps at Le Cateau as they had been against the 1st Corps at Landrecies, and with a precisely similar purpose.
The superb gallantry of the troops, and the skilful leading by divisional and brigade and battalion commanders, helped very materially by the support given by Allenby and, as I afterwards learned, by Sordet and d' Amade, saved the 2nd Corps, which otherwise would assuredly have been pinned to their ground and then surrounded. The Cavalry might have made good their retreat, but three out of five divisions of the British Army with the 7th Brigade must have been lost.
The enemy, flushed by this primary victory, would have pressed in on the flanks of the 1st Corps, cut off their retreat, and, continuing his combined front and flank attack, would have almost certainly pushed the whole Allied Army off their line of retreat, and a stupendous repetition of Sedan might well have resulted.
The magnificent fight put up by these glorious troops saved disaster; but the actual result was a total Joss of at least 14,000 officers and men, about eighty guns, numbers of machine guns, as well as quantities of ammunition, war material and baggage, whilst the enemy gained time to close up his Infantry columns, marching down from the north-east, at the cost of losses not greater than, if as great, as oar own, but which were, in view of the immense superiority he possessed in numbers and fighting power, infinitely less important to him.
The effect upon the British Army was to render the subsequent conduct of the retreat more difficult and arduous.
If no further official statement is to be made, the ordinary layman will probably come to the following conclusion: Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien was in a position of
great responsibility and danger. His men were weary, and the enemy wore pressing him with an overwhelming superiority of men and guns. He decided that a further retreat could not be successfully carried out unless a blow was first inflicted on the enemy, a conclusion which appears undoubtedly true. The blow was successfully administered, as Sir John French stated in the official dispatch, '' Fortunately, the enemy had himself suffered too heavily to engage in an energetic pursuit," and the retreat was continued, after a loss of, Lord French says, 14,000 officers and men, the number according to others competent to judge being under 8,000. It is important to consider how many officers and men would have been lost had the retreat been continued without striking a blow, with an enemy fresh, greatly superior in numbers, and unshaken by gun and rifle fire, at the heels of the weary, footsore men of the 2nd Army Corps. From the fact that Sir John French very highly praised Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien in the despatch sent to Lord Kitchener a week or two later we may conclude that at the time the Commander-in-Chief fully approved of the decision taken, and that it was only after years had elapsed that he became wise after the event. But it should not be necessary for a mere layman to suggest these considerations. Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien should either be allowed to speak for himself, or should have his case stated for him by the Secretary of State for War. One can understand that the discipline necessary in an Army does not make it possible for any and every officer who has a grievance to air it or who has been attacked to reply to it in a book or a newspaper article; but here you have a distinguished general, rightly honoured throughout the British Empire for many years of military services of the highest value, and he surely can expect and will receive justice concerning these attacks, which, in the opinion of most, should never have been made.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The hon. Gentleman at, Question Time said ho intended to raise a certain question on the Adjournment. After listening to his speech, which if I may say so was less an original composition than a judicious selection of extracts. I am at a loss to know to what precise
question affecting the practical decision announced to the House he desires me to address myself. The question which he put on the paper certainly raised a point on which the House is entitled to an expression of opinion from the Government. But I think the hon. Gentleman himself has shown the absolute impracticability of our attempting to deal with the kind of highly technical and controversial issues involved in these military events. How are you to go into the relative merits of the action taken by Sir John French or Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien? History is the only tribunal which can be final, and I expect that history will deal with it in rather a lame fashion. I think all history has dealt with matters in a way which would be much disputed by people who were alive at the time. There are quite clear practical issues on this question, but I should like to say that my hon. Friend will not suppose that there is an entirely satisfactory or a complete answer to every question that is raised. Undoubtedly difficulties are found when partial disclosures are made, but the War Office have a limited function in. this matter and discharge it according to rule. We do not consider that a Field-Marshal unemployed is in a different position from that of a retired officer. We are advised— I took the trouble to have the matter carefully investigated—that the Governor of Gibraltar is in every sense of the word a military officer serving under the War Office. He is a serving soldier. We cannot-exercise jurisdiction over the publications of Field-Marshals who are unemployed. If so, the War Office would have quarrelled with Lord Roberts, Lord Wolseley, and otherwell-known and famous occupants of the rank of Field-Marshal. But we do claim jurisdiction over the serving soldier, and we consider, according to the advice that we have received, that Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien is a serving soldier, and we have forbidden him to publish any reply to the criticisms of his conduct which have been made by Lord French. Now we must do that because it is the rule, and if we were to abandon that rule. then you would have officers of every rank—

Mr. J. JONES: I rise to a point of Order. Is not Lord French Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is not n point of Order. If we were to abrogate that rule-we should undoubtedly find officers of
every rank publishing and arguing matters of military and professional significance. But, Sir, at first sight this may appear to impose an undue hardship on Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien. But does it, really? Someone has said some time ago, "Oh, that mine enemy would write a book !" and when I read some of the books which are published by officers of the naval as well as the military service—everyone is very ready to criticise Lord French, but Lord Jellicoe has also written a book which deals with very controversial topics—[Hon. Members: "Weekly Dispatch !"] An article is not a book. No one ever said, "Oh that mine enemy would write an article." Nearly all our enemies write articles, they hardly ever stop writing articles. But, broadly speaking, I say, is Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien injured by the fact that he is a serving soldier and that the War Office will not allow him to embark on a controversial discussion of this kind" I say, without hesitation, "No." He has an opportunity of laying his case before the Army Council and of asking whether they will allow him to publish his reply, and that we have communicated to him. But I do not think it is desirable at present that serving soldiers should take part in controversies of this kind, even if they have received what they call some provocation. But that is a matter in itself which deserves discussion, because books have been published greatly reflecting on the conduct of Lord French, which, it is alleged, have in some way derived their inspiration from General Smith-Dorrien. Further I am of the opinion that we must stick to the rule, even if it appears to work somewhat inequitably, and we must say that an officer who is a serving soldier must not take part in these controversies or make any publication which has not been previously approved by the War Office. I do not think the matter can end there. I am sure it is not going to end there if history comes along and will require to be informed of all sorts of facts that the public have received very erroneous impressions of during the War. Nothing has impressed me more than the number of points on which our nation has been entirely misled in regard to military and naval matters, and I dare say political matters too, in connection with the War. [An HON. MEMBER: "Antwerp !"] That is a matter in which I personally take a great deal of
interest, but I am quite certain that those who will wait with patience and allow other people to write books will not be those who will suffer most severely from the premature judgment of contemporaries. As for history it will not care who got in first. It will come along on a much broader survey of these events. 1 am strongly of opinion that the proper course to adopt is to publish, when the moment arrives, which need not be long delayed, a definite series of publications laid on the Table of the House of Commons. consisting of authentic documents bearing on naval and military matters and episodes annoted and explained by the general staff of the Army and Navy, which shall provide for the whole nation the raw material, the basic dator to enable fair comment to be made. There is nothing better than authentic documents. Nobody cares or ought to care a row of buttons what a man said after the event or what he says he thought before the event. We should have the authentic documents which have governed the actual operations by land and sea and the propriety of such a. publication is at the present time being considered by the Government.

Mr. HOGGE: This was considered long ago.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The pressure of business has prevented this being arranged so far. The hon. Member always takes an unfavourable view of the Government. That is obvious. It is his special point of view—almost his unique point of view.

Mr. HOGGE: Is it not a fact that as long as two years ago questions were put and answered in this House that there is a body in existence which is actually producing, and has produced, the documents, the publication of which my right hon. Friend says the Government are considering?

An HON MEMBER: They are in a box.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I know nothing about that. I do think the only way to deal with these difficulties is to stick to our rule that serving soldiers must not take part in these controversies, and, secondly, to publish at the earliest proper opportunity the authentic documents governing these important events; and, thirdly, I think we should remember in all these matters whatever documents are subsequently produced will not be docu-
ments which throw blame or censure on this or that actor in the great drama which has now closed. They will all be documents which, however you may view them, will only relate to a series of events in which the British race and nation are entitled to take the greatest satisfaction, and in regard to which they may attribute to the actors in them the highest possible service that has been rendered to this country.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The time is almost gone, but there is sufficient for me to say
that the answer which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman is thoroughly unsatisfactory. A charge has been made against an honourable officer who at present has the confidence of the Army Council and the country. He has no chance of reply. The Army Council have the facts before them, but they do not say, a word on his behalf. They allow the whole question to go down to the pallid shades of history.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.